creek county

Transcription

creek county

CREEK COUNTY
Multi-Jurisdictional
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Participation Jurisdictions:
Creek County
City of Bristow
Town of Depew
City of Drumright
Town of Kellyville
Town of Kiefer
City of Mannford
Town of Mounds
Allen Bowden Public Schools
Bristow Public Schools
Depew Public Schools
Drumright Public Schools
Gypsy Public Schools
Kellyville Public Schools
Kiefer Public Schools
Mannford Public Schools
Milfay Public Schools
Mounds Public Schools
Oilton Public Schools
Olive Public Schools
Pretty Water Public Schools
March 29, 2012
Creek County
i
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.1
About the Plan
This document is the first phase of a multi-hazard mitigation plan for Creek County. It is a
strategic planning guide developed in fulfillment of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to the Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This act provides federal assistance to state and
local governments to alleviate suffering and damage from disasters. It broadens existing relief
programs to encourage disaster preparedness plans and programs, coordination and
responsiveness, insurance coverage, and hazard mitigation measures.
This plan is developed in accordance with guidance from, and fulfills requirements for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The plan addresses natural hazards and hazardous materials
events.
1.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to:
1.
Assess the ongoing hazard mitigation activities in Creek County (Chapter 1)
2.
Outline the Planning Process used by Creek County in completing a MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (Chapter 2)
3.
Identify and assess the hazards that may pose a threat to citizens and property
(Chapter 3)
4.
Evaluate mitigation measures that should be undertaken to protect citizens and
property (Chapter 4)
5.
Outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects (Chapter 5)
6.
Plan Maintenance and Adoption (Chapter 6)
The objective of this plan is to provide guidance for county-wide hazard mitigation activities for
the next five years. It will ensure that Creek County and other partners implement activities that
are most effective and appropriate for mitigating natural hazards and hazardous materials
incidents.
1.1.2 Scope
The scope of the Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is county-wide. It addresses
natural hazards deemed to be a threat to the citizens of Creek County, as well as hazardousmaterials events. Both short-term and long-term hazard mitigation opportunities are addressed
beyond existing federal, state, and local funding programs. The jurisdictions participating in this
Creek County
1
plan are Creek County, and the Creek County communities of Bristow, Depew, Drumright,
Kellyville, Kiefer, Mannford, and Mounds. Also participating in this plan are school districts in
Creek County; the school districts of Allen Bowden Public Schools, Bristow Public Schools,
Depew Public Schools, Drumright Public Schools, Gypsy Public Schools, Kellyville Public
Schools, Kiefer Public Schools, Mannford Public Schools, Milfay Public Schools, Mounds Public
Schools, Oilton Public Schools, Olive Public Schools, and Pretty Water Public Schools.
1.1.3 Authority
Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Public Law
93-288, as amended), Title 44 CFR, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, provides the framework for state and local governments to evaluate and mitigate all hazards
as a condition of receiving federal disaster assistance. A major requirement of the law is the
development of a hazard mitigation plan.
1.1.4 Funding
Funding for the Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was provided by a grant from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Oklahoma Department of Emergency
Management (ODEM). A 75% FEMA grant through the ODEM, with a 25% local share, was
administered through the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). The Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program grant under FEMA 1876-DR-OK was $93,988.00. The local match
was $31,330.00.
1.1.5 Goals
The goals for the Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan were developed by Creek County
staff and the Creek County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (CCEMAC), with
input from adjacent jurisdictions, agencies, and interested citizens. The local goals were
developed taking into account the hazard mitigation strategies and goals of the federal and state
governments.
National Mitigation Strategy and Goal
FEMA has developed ten fundamental principles for the nation's mitigation strategy:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Creek County
Risk reduction measures ensure long-term economic success for the
community as a whole, rather than short-term benefits for special interests.
Risk reduction measures for one natural hazard must be compatible with risk
reduction measures for other natural hazards.
Risk reduction measures must be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given
location.
Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with risk
reduction measures for technological hazards, and vice versa.
All mitigation is local.
Emphasizing proactive mitigation before emergency response can reduce
disaster costs and the impacts of natural hazards.
Both pre-disaster
(preventive) and post-disaster (corrective) mitigation is needed.
Hazard identification and risk assessment are the cornerstones of mitigation.
2
8.
9.
10
Building new federal-state-local partnerships and public-private partnerships is
the most effective means of implementing measures to reduce the impacts of
natural hazards.
Those who knowingly choose to assume greater risk must accept responsibility
for that choice.
Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with the
protection of natural and cultural resources.
FEMA’s goal is to:
1.
2.
Substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk so that the public
insists on having safer communities in which to live and work
Significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and
destruction of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards
State of Oklahoma Mitigation Strategy and Goals
The State of Oklahoma has developed a Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan to guide all levels
of government, business, and the public to reduce or eliminate the effects of natural,
technological, and man-made disasters. The goals and objectives are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Improve government recovery capability.
Provide pre- and post-disaster recovery guidance.
Protect public health and safety.
Reduce losses and damage to property and infrastructure.
Preserve natural and cultural resources in vulnerable areas.
Preserve the environment.
Focus only on those mitigation measures that are cost-effective and provide the
best benefit to communities.
The key measures to implement these goals include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Enhance communication between state and federal agencies and local
governments to facilitate post-disaster recovery and pre- and post-disaster
mitigation.
Coordinate federal, state, local, and private resources to enhance the
preparedness and mitigation process.
Ensure consistency between federal and state regulations.
Protect critical facilities from hazards.
Support legislation that protects hazardous areas from being developed.
Creek County’s Goal
To improve the safety and well-being of the citizens residing and working in Creek County by
reducing the potential of death, injury, property damage, environmental and other losses from
natural and technological hazards
Goals for mitigation of each of the hazards are presented in Chapter 4
Creek County
3
1.1.6 Point of Contact
The primary point of contact for information regarding this plan is:
Roscoe Thornbury
Creek County Emergency Management Director
10 S Oak
Sapulpa, OK 74066
Telephone: (918) 227-6358
Fax: (918) 227-6361
e-mail: [email protected]
The secondary point of contact is:
Irving Frank
Creek County Planning
317 E Lee Ave
Sapulpa, OK 74066
Telephone: (918) 227-6369
Fax: (918) 227-6308
e-mail:[email protected]
Creek County
4
1.2
Community Description
Like most counties in the region, Creek County is faced with a variety of hazards, both natural
and man-made. In recent history, winter storms, lightning, floods, and tornadoes have made the
national headlines. Any part of the county may be impacted by high winds, drought, hail, fire,
hazardous materials events, and other catastrophes. In some cases such as flooding and dam
failure, the areas most at risk have been mapped and delineated.
Creek County is located south of the Arkansas River in the eastern part of the State of Oklahoma.
1.2.1 Geography
Latitude:
Longitude:
35.52N
96.22W
Creek County is located in northeast Oklahoma and is accessed primarily by I-44, US-66, SH-33,
SH -48, and SH- 97. Sapulpa, the county seat of Creek County, is 22 miles southeast of Tulsa
and 94 miles northeast of Oklahoma City. Creek County encompasses approximately 970 square
miles. Map Number 1 in Appendix 1 is a location map of Creek County.
1.2.2 Climate
Sapulpa the county seat of Creek County lies at an elevation of 818 feet above sea level. Creek
County is far enough south to miss the extreme cold of winter. The climate is essentially
continental characterized by rapid changes in temperature. The winter months are usually mild,
with temperatures occasionally falling below zero, but only for a very short time. Temperatures of
100 degrees or higher are often experienced from late July to early September. January's average
temperature is 23 degrees Fahrenheit and Augusts’ average high temperature is 93 degrees
Fahrenheit. Creek County will receive a wide variety of precipitation throughout any given year.
It averages 39.85 inches of rainfall.
1.2.3 History
Creek County was created at statehood, in 1907. The county was intended to be named Moman
County in honor of the mother of Moman Pruiett. The name was changed at the last moment at
the Constitutional Convention, thus the reason that in the alphabetical list of counties in the State
Constitution, Creek County appears following Mayes County. The County was named for the
Creek Nation; the word is from the term "Ochese Creek Indians," used by the early British
settlers.
1.2.4 Population and Demographics
According to the 2010 US Census, the2010 Creek County population was 69,967. In 2000, the
County population was 67,367, an increase of 3.86% over the ten years; making an annual growth
rate of 0.38%. The median age of the Creek County population is 40.0, with 15% of the
population being 65 or greater, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Older populations
are more vulnerable to certain hazards, such as extreme heat and cold. A map, showing the age
65 and older areas, is shown in Map Number 2 in Appendix 1. Low-income populations are also
Creek County
5
more vulnerable to extreme temperatures; low-income areas are shown in Map Number 3 in
Appendix 1. Creek County demographic data is shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Creek County Demographic Data
Source: 2010 Census
SUBJECT
Total Population
65 years and older
Poverty Status in 2009 (individuals)
NUMBER
69,967
10,475
8,953
According to the Creek County Assessor’s Office 2011 records, there are 43,005 parcels in the
County, and 24,816 parcels with improvements, with an assessed improvement value of
$1,757,048,808. Numbers of parcels with improvements (buildings, garages, pools, storage, etc.)
and improvement values, by type are shown in the table below.
Table 1-2: Creek County Housing Property Types by Assessed Values
Source: Creek County Assessor’s Office
Category
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Total
Number of
Structures
20,694
1,384
2,738
24,816
Structure Value ($$)
1,289,255,092
309,410,433
158,383,283
1,757,048,808
1.2.5 Local Utilities--Lifelines
Lifelines are defined as those infrastructure facilities that are essential to the function of the
community and the well being of its residents. They generally include transportation and utility
systems. Transportation systems include interstate, US, and state highways, rail, waterways, ports
and harbors, and airports. Utility systems include electric power, gas and liquid fuels,
telecommunications, water, and wastewater. The following table shows utilities and the
companies or sources that supply each one for Creek County.
Table 1-3: Utility Suppliers for Creek County
UTILITY
Electric
Water
Sewage Treatment
Natural Gas
Telephone
Creek County
SUPPLIER
Community and AEP/PSO
Community and RWD
Community
Community, ONG, and OG&E
Southwestern Bell
6
1.2.6 Economy
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Creek County's population age 16 and over was 54,658. In
2000, there are 30,034 people in the labor force and 2.9% are unemployed. Of the people
employed, 79.5% are salary and private-wage workers, 13.2% are government workers, and 7.1%
are self-employed in unincorporated businesses. The median household income in 2000 was
$33,168.
1.2.7 Industry
Principle employment occupations in Creek County include managerial, professional, sales, and
office work, followed by production, transportation, service occupations, and construction,
maintenance.
1.2.8 Future Development
The Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area is growing at 1.3%, the same as the national growth rate.
Comparatively, the State of Oklahoma is growing at 1.0% annually. Creek County's annual
growth rate is 0.38%. Growth, development and redevelopment in Creek County are estimated to
continue at this same pace. Primary growth areas include the Sapulpa area and the northeast
corner of the County near Tulsa.
Growth Trends
Oklahoma Department of Commerce estimates that Creek County will continue to grow at .038%
per year over the next twenty years. Development activity is expected to continue in the Sapulpa
Area and the northeast corner of the County.
Creek County
7
1.3
Regulatory Framework
This section contains a summary of the current ordinances for land use, zoning, subdivision,
floodplain in Creek County that was reviewed by the Creek County Multi-Hazard Planning
Committee. It also lists the current building codes and fire insurance rating.
1.3.1 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning
Creek County has a comprehensive plan, zoning code, and subdivision regulations. The Creek
County Planning Commission oversees planning and zoning in Creek County. The Zoning Code
and Subdivision Regulations, and input by the County Planning and Zoning staff, were utilized as
a reference in the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Creek County Zoning Code, adopted March 1, 1994, is administered by County staff.
Creek County Subdivision Regulations, adopted October 10 1988, is administered by the Creek
County Planning Commission pursuant to the powers vested through Title 19, Oklahoma
Statutes, Chapter 19.a, Sections 12 and 13, as amended to review, approve and disapprove plats
for the subdivision of land within the Creek County.
Bristow Zoning Code, adopted 1977, is administered by the City.
Bristow Subdivision Regulations, adopted 1977, is administered by the City.
Drumright Zoning Code, adopted 1983, is administered by the City.
Drumright Subdivision Regulations, adopted 1977, is administered by the City.
Kiefer Zoning Code, adopted 2011, is administered by the Town.
Kiefer Subdivision Regulations, adopted 2011, is administered by the Town.
1.3.2 Floodplain Management
The Creek County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The County
enforces floodplain management regulations beyond the national minimum criteria. The
County’s floodplain management regulations and mapping were utilized as a resource and
reference in the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The other communities
participating in the plan; Bristow, Depew, Drumright, Kellyville, Kiefer, Mannford, and Mounds,
also participate in the NFIP.
1.3.3 Building Codes
The Creek County and the participating communities use the International Building Code,
published by BOCA, as well as supplemental ordinances which cover areas where the
International Codes are inadequate or vague. This information was used as a reference in
preparing this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
1.3.4 Fire Protection and Insurance
Creek County has numerous community fire departments, with various ISO fire ratings. Ratings
for the participating communities in Creek County range from 4 to 9, where lower numbers
Creek County
8
signify better ratings. Primary factors related to the rating process involves how the department
responds to alarms and notifies its personnel; the supply and distribution of water in the area;
staffing; training and equipment. ISO ratings for the participating communities’ fire departments
in the county are as follows: Bristow - 5, Depew - 5, Drumright - 6, Kellyville - 5, and Kiefer - 5.
Fire Department statistics and information were used as a reference in preparing this Hazard
Mitigation Plan and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3: Wildfires.
Creek County
9
1.4
Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs
In an effort to address hazards that impact the county, the Creek County has identified existing
plans and procedures for informing people about protection measures and warning the public of
impending threats. The review of existing plans is important in the preparation of this hazard
mitigation plan.
1.4.1 Emergency Operations Plans
The Creek County has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 2011. The EOP was
used as a reference in preparing this Hazard Mitigation Plan
Bristow has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan, last adopted in 2007.
Drumright has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan, adopted in 2003.
Kiefer has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan, adopted in 2011.
Oilton has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan, last updated in 2011.
Drumright Public Schools has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan, last updated in 2011.
Mounds Public Schools does not have an Emergency Operations Plan.
1.4.2 Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is the principle method of scheduling and financing future
capital needs, and part of those needs could address hazard mitigation actions. Major updates to
the CIP should occur periodically and the plan should receive a minor review during the annual
budgeting process. All eight of the participating communities have CIPs, and projects on their CIPs
could have a positive impact upon the community’s ability to mitigate and respond to hazard events.
The City of Bristow last updated their CIP in 2010. Their capital projects included:
1. Street Improvements
2. Sewer Line Improvements
3. Water Line Improvements
4. Acquire a skid steer
The City of Drumright last updated their CIP in 2010. Their capital projects included:
1. Replace Bullet Proof Vests
2. Replace Policed Patrol Vehicle
3. Renovate/Replace Police Building
4. Replace Storm Sirens
The Town of Kellyville last updated their CIP in 2010. Their capital projects included:
1. Sewer Line Improvements
2. Lagoon Improvements
3. Improve Roads in the Cemetery
4. Replace Sewer Machine
The Town of Kiefer last updated their CIP in 2009. Their capital projects included:
1. Remodel Police Station
2. Resurface N. Mary Street
Creek County
10
3. Street Repairs in multiple locations
4. Update wastewater lagoon
The City of Oilton last updated their CIP in 2005. The capital needs included:
1. Street Improvements
2. Waterline Improvements
3. Sewer line Improvements
4. Repairs to City Hall
The School Districts also have capital improvement plans, in the same manner and purposes as
the communities.
The Allen Bowden Public Schools has a capital improvement plan, updated in 2009. Their
capital projects for FY2013 include:
1. Replace the flooring in 6-8 Building.
2. Construct a new track.
3. Paint the PreK-3 Building. Inside.
The Bristow Public Schools CIP was lasted updated in 2011. Their capital projects include:
1. Construction and equipping a Kindergarten building
2. All weather track resurfacing project
3. Construction of an Agriculture Program classroom/Wrestling room addition
4. Installation of in ground irrigation systems at the Softball/Baseball complex
5. Upgrade/Modernization of all library computer systems
6. Construction of a Pecan St. egress at the high school site
7. Installation of a new Press box at Hafer Field (football/track facility)
8. Acquire and install technology equipment at all sites (wireless capabilities)
9. Construction of covered walkways in designated areas at all school sites.
The Drumright Public Schools CIP was lasted updated in2009. Their capital projects include:
1. A new middle school.
2. New athletic fields.
3. Technology improvements.
The Mounds Public Schools does not have a capital improvement plan.
The Pretty Water Public Schools has a capital improvement plan. Their capital projects include:
1. Eight HVAC units.
2. Remodel two elementary school restrooms.
Creek County
11
Chapter 2:
The Planning Process
2.1
Documentation of the Planning Process
The Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a county-wide effort to coordinate Creek
County’s multi-hazard planning, development, and mitigation activities. The Indian Nations
Council of Governments (INCOG) was responsible for overall coordination and management of
the study, aided by Creek County staff and representatives of the participating jurisdictions.
A mitigation plan is the product of a rational thought process that reviews the hazards, quantifies
their impacts on the county, identifies alternative mitigation activities, and selects those activities
that will work best for the county.
This plan addresses the following hazards
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Floods
Tornadoes
High Winds
Lightning
Hailstorms
Severe Winter Storms
Extreme Heat
Drought
Expansive Soils
Wildfires
Earthquakes
Hazardous Materials Events
Dam Breaks
The approach for the Creek County multi-hazard mitigation plan update followed a ten-step
process, based on the guidance and requirements of FEMA. The ten steps are described below.
2.1.1 Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan
An open public process was established to give all sections in Creek County and individuals and
agencies in the County regional area interested in hazard mitigation issues, an opportunity to
become involved in the planning process and make their views known. Citizens and community
leaders; city, county, regional, state, and federal staff; and professionals active in hazard
mitigation planning provided important input in the development of the plan.
The planning process was conducted by the Creek County Emergency Management Advisory
Committee (CCEMAC), made of representatives of the participating jurisdictions.
The CCEMAC was supported by the county staff. INCOG staff worked with the committee for
this hazard mitigation plan update. The County and INCOG staff met several times during the
planning process; attended all meetings of the CCEMAC and meetings with elected officials. All
of the CCEMAC meetings were posted at the County and in other public places, including the
County Emergency Management Office, and open to the public.
Creek County
12
The CCEMAC met at the Creek County Assessor’s Offices during the planning process to review
progress, identify issues, receive task assignments, and advise the County and INCOG staff
dedicated to updating the plan. Local research and input was provided by committee members
and the INCOG staff provided a regional hazard mitigation perspective and direct access to state
and federal hazard information resources and led the preparation of draft planning documents.
INCOG staff outlined the plan and prepared a draft. Committee members selected the hazards to
investigate, provided specific county information, conducted the public hazard awareness survey,
ranked mitigation activities, and selected the action plan projects. INCOG staff then prepared the
final plan update for review. A list of CCEMAC members and meetings are shown in Table 2-1.
The agendas, minutes, and sign-in sheets for these meetings are included in Appendix 2.
Table 2–1:
Creek County Emergency Management Advisory Committee
Roscoe Thornbury
Irving Frank
Bob Grant
Danny Cooper
Roger Tuttle
Stacey White
Bruce Coldiron
Jimmy Reynolds
Curtis Shelton
Joe Crowder
Ike McDaniel
Alfred Gaches
Jeff Taylor
John McElhenney
Creek County
Creek County, Emergency Mgmt Dir, and Committee Chairman
Creek County
City of Bristow
City of Drumright
Town of Kellyville
Town of Kiefer
City of Oilton
Pretty Water Public Schools.
INCOG
13
Committee Meetings and Activities
Date
First meeting
11/17/2011
Second meeting
01/12/2012
Activity
CCEMAC meeting at Creek County Assessor’s Offices to discuss the
overall need for a plan, the jurisdictions to be included in the update,
the planning process and plan outline, discuss hazard identification and
assessment issues and begin review of Draft Plan. Developed a hazard
awareness survey.
CCEMAC meeting at Creek County Assessor’s Offices to review the
hazard awareness survey, review the mapping, discuss mitigation goals
and objectives, and discuss mitigation activities and the ranking
process.
Third meeting
02/16/2012
CCEMAC meeting at Creek County Assessor’s Offices to review
committee’s selection of mitigation activities for the County, the
Communities, and the School Districts. Also discuss the plan
maintenance and the County, Communities, and School Districts
adoption process.
Fourth meeting
03/29/2012
CCEMAC meeting at Creek County Assessor’s Offices to hold public
hearing on final draft, receive comments from other communities and
agencies, and Committee recommendation to approve plan.
April 2012
Creek County Board of County Commissioners Meeting. The Board
will take action on adopting the updated multi-jurisdictional multihazard mitigation plan by resolution.
2.1.2 Step Two: Involve the Public
An open to the public planning process was again utilized by the County in this plan update
process. In addition to the CCEMAC, the staff team undertook additional projects to inform the
public of this effort and to solicit their input. All meetings of the CCEMAC were publicly
posted. A hazard awareness survey was developed and circulated by CCEMAC members and by
the County to solicit community input on hazard awareness and assessment of their level of
concern. Feedback from these surveys was important to the development of the plan. 104
responses were received. A copy of the survey and summary of the responses are included in
Appendix 4. Public comments were also invited through a public hearing. A public hearing was
held on March 29, 2012 to solicit public comments before final plan update approval. A copy of
the public hearing notice, attendance, and minutes are included in Appendix 2.
2.1.3 Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and
Organizations
As part of the plan update process and to collect data on the hazards that impact Creek County,
staff reviewed information sources: public agencies, private organizations, and businesses that
contend with natural hazards. These sources included printed documents and internet web sites.
The agencies and organizations included FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, the US Geological
Survey, INCOG, Creek County, the State Department of Environmental Quality, the National
Climatic Data Center, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the Tulsa World,
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Academia included the University of Oklahoma
Meteorology Department. FEMA mapping, when combined with aerial data and historic data
Creek County
14
from the National Climatic Data Center proved to be crucial to hazard identification and impact.
The following list of agencies was invited to comment on a draft of the updated plan prior to
approval. A sample letter requesting such comments is included in Appendix 3.
Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Non-Profit
American Red Cross
State
Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Regional
Indian Nation Council of Governments (INCOG)
Creek County
County Departments
Bristow, Depew, Drumright, Kellyville, Kiefer, Mannford, and Mounds
Municipal Offices
Business
John Brock, Sapulpa Herald
Academia
Depew Public Schools
Gypsy Public Schools
Kellyville Public Schools
Kiefer Public Schools
Milfay Public Schools
Oilton Public Schools
Olive Public School
Pretty Water Public Schools.
Non-Profit
Richard Forbes
Coordination with other county planning efforts is critical to the success of the Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan updates. The planning process utilized for the initial plan was followed for the
2012 update. The CCEMAC used information included in the most current version of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, FIRM Maps, Building Codes and
County Ordinances as part of the update process. The County Staff provided information in
regard to the utilization of the initial Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as a resource for integrating
Action Plan Activities and other plan information into other County planning activities. Through
Creek County
15
participation in the CCEMAC, participating communities and school districts provided valuable
information to the plan update process.
2.1.4 Step Four: Assess the Hazard
The staff team collected data on the hazards from available sources. Hazard assessment is
included in Chapter 3, with the discussion of each hazard.
Table 2-2 lists the various hazards that affects Creek County, describes how they were identified,
and why they were identified.
Table 2–2:
How and Why Hazards Were Identified
Hazard
How Identified
Why Identified
Floods
Tornados
High Winds
• Review of FEMA and City and County
floodplain maps
• Buildings in the floodplains
• Historical floods and damages
• Review of recent disaster declarations
• Input from Emergency Manager
• Consensus of Emergency Management
Advisory Committee
• Review of data from the NCDC
• National Weather Service data
• Loss information provided by national
insurance companies
• 2711 parcels in Creek County are
located in the floodplain
• Over $ 200 million of property at risk
• Creek County is located in “Tornado
Alley”
• An average of one tornado strikes Creek
County annually.
• All County is a risk.
• High wind-related events in occur in
Creek County.
• Thunder and lightning occur regularly
throughout the County.
• Anecdotal evidence suggests hail
damage accounts for the highest residential
insurance claims in the County.
• The County experienced a severe snow
and ice event in 2011, bringing the County
to a halt.
• Severe snow and ice events seem to
occur annually.
• Local community service organizations
have made heat- related deaths a high
priority.
• Extreme heat is extremely dangerous to
the elderly and infirm.
Lightning
•
NCDC information and statistics
Hailstorms
•
National Climatic Data Center
Severe Winter
Storms
• Review of past Disaster Declarations
• Input from State Emergency Management
Agency and Creek County Emergency
Management
• Input from area utility companies
Extreme Heat
• Review of number of heat-related deaths and
injuries during hot Oklahoma summers
• Review of data from NCDC
Drought
• Historical vulnerability to drought, the “Dust
Bowl” era
• Drought and water shortages in adjacent
communities in recent years
• Need to ensure adequate long- term
water resources for the County
Expansive Soils
•
•
• Damage to buildings from expansive
soils is difficult after it is built.
• Can be mitigated with building code
provisions.
Creek County
Input from INCOG
Review of NRSC data
16
Table 2–2: How and Why Hazards Were Identified
(continued)
How Identified
Why Identified
Hazard
Wildfires
•
•
Input from Creek County Fire Departments
Input from State Fire Marshal
• Continuing loss of life and property due to
fires
• Numerous areas of Creek County are
exposed and vulnerable to wildfires
Earthquakes
•
•
•
Historic records of area earthquakes
Input from Oklahoma Geological Survey
Input from USGS
•
Dam Break
•
•
•
OWRB Dam Safety Program
Review of USGS maps
Review of FIRM maps
Hazardous
Materials Events
•
•
Input from ODEQ
Input from the State Fire Marshall
Creek County has had mild earthquakes
• 13 dams in the county are identified as
significant or high hazard dams. A dam break
would flood buildings and facilities
downstream
• Several hazardous materials sites are
scattered throughout the county
• Major traffic ways expose Creek County
to potential traffic way hazardous materials
incidents
2.1.5 Step Five: Assess the Problem
The hazard data was analyzed in light of what it means to public safety, health, buildings,
transportation, infrastructure, critical facilities, and the economy. County and INCOG staff
prepared several analyses using INCOG’s geographic information system. The discussion of the
problem assessment is addressed for each hazard in Chapter 3.
DAMAGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The following methodologies were used in the development of damage cost estimated for
buildings and contents for flooding and tornado/high wind damage, used in Creek County’s
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Update.
Structure Value: The value of the buildings within Creek County was obtained from
the Creek County Assessor’s office.
Contents Value: Value of contents for all buildings was estimated using FEMA 386-2
Understanding Your Risks. Table, page 3-11, “Contents Value as Percentage of Building
Replacement Value”.
Creek County
17
2.1.6 Step Six: Set Goals
Hazard mitigation goals and objectives for Creek County were developed by the CCEMAC to
guide the development of the plan. The hazard mitigation goals and objectives for the County are
listed in Chapter 4.
2.1.7 Step Seven: Review Possible Activities
A wide variety of measures that can affect hazards or the damage from hazards were examined.
The mitigation activities were organized under the following six categories. A more detailed
description of each category is located in “Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Preventive activities—Zoning, building codes, city ordinances
Structural Projects—Levees, reservoirs, channel improvements
Property protection—Acquisition, retrofitting, insurance
Emergency service—Warning, sandbagging, evacuation
Public information and education—Outreach projects and technical assistance
2.1.8 Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan
The County and the CCEMAC reviewed the list of recommended actions in the initial Creek
County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County reported to the committee the projects that
were completed. Potential future hazard mitigation activities were reviewed and discussed by the
committee. The County then selected mitigation projects and activities for the Count y to include
in this update; for each project or activity identified for this update, it identified the party
responsible for implementing the task, estimated the cost of the project, identified potential
funding sources, and determined the target completion date for each activity. Each participating
jurisdiction did the same for their own jurisdiction. Once all the jurisdiction’s action plans were
drafted, they were inserted into the final draft of the County multi-hazard mitigation plan update.
2.1.9 Step Nine: Adopt the Plan
The CCEMAC reviewed the final draft approved the final plan and submitted it to the Creek
County Board of County Commissioners, and each jurisdiction’s governing board, for adoption.
2.1.10 Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise
Adoption of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is only the beginning of this effort. County offices,
other agencies, and private partners will proceed with implementation. The CCEMAC will
monitor progress, evaluate the activities, and annually recommend revisions to the action items.
This process will involve quarterly meetings in which the CCEMAC will monitor progress on the
Action Plan and review other mitigation actions for inclusion in the Action Plan for Years 2
through 5. This monitoring and review process will also be coordinated so as to provide input
into other appropriate county and community planning efforts specifically updates to the
County’s Capital Improvement Plan and the County’s Annual Budget.
Creek County
18
Chapter 3:
Risk Assessment and
Vulnerability Analysis
3.1
Identifying Hazards
There were 13 hazards investigated by the CCEMAC. These were considered to be all the
relevant hazards, following the committee’s hazard information search. Hazard identification
was discussed at the initial hazard mitigation planning meetings, held on November 17, 2011.
The hazards facing the participating Creek County communities and the participating school
districts are the same hazards facing the County. The participating communities’ buildings, and
the participating school districts’ buildings, are all located within Creek County. Therefore, their
risk and vulnerability from the hazards are included in the Creek County countywide risk and
vulnerability analysis. A map showing the location of the schools’ buildings being within Creek
County is shown on Map 1A in Appendix 1.
The hazards are listed in Table 2.2. The table lists each hazard, the items that were considered in
how the hazard was identified, and why each hazard was identified. Hazard information was
obtained from the County Emergency Management, Community Officials, regional planning
agency (INCOG), review of FIRMs, and public input.
3.2
Profiling Hazard Events
This section provides a profile of each hazard. In this section, the letter “X”, when included in a
subsection identification label, refers to a specific hazard’s subsection, as follows:
X=1
X=2
X=3
X=4
X=5
X=6
X=7
X=8
X=9
X=10
X=11
X=12
X=13
Flood Hazard
Tornado Hazard
High Winds Hazard
Lightning Hazard
Hail Storm Hazard
Winter Storm Hazard
Heat Hazard
Drought Hazard
Expansive Soils Hazard
Wildfire Hazard
Earthquake Hazard
Hazardous Material Hazard
Dam Break
Subsection 3.2.X.1 describes each hazard, subsection 3.2.X.2 identifies the location of the hazard,
subsection 3.2.X.3 identifies the extent (such as severity or magnitude) of the hazard, subsection
3.2.X.4 provides information on previous occurrences, subsection 3.2.X.5 discusses the
probability of future occurrences, and subsection 3.2.X.6 discusses vulnerability and impact.
Each hazard affects the county as a whole, except floods, expansive soil and dam breaks which
are location specific.
Creek County
19
3.2.1
Flood Hazard
3.2.1.1
Flooding is defined as the accumulation of water within a water body and the
overflow of the excess water onto adjacent lands. The floodplains are the lands adjoining the
channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other watercourse or water body that is susceptible to
flooding.
3.2.1.2
The location of the flood hazard in Creek County is its regulatory floodplain, as
defined by the County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The regulatory floodplain lies in
several watersheds within the County. The flood hazard is shown on Map Number 5 in Appendix
1.
3.2.1.3
The severity of a flood is determined by several factors; including, rainfall
intensity, duration, and location, and ground cover imperviousness and degree of saturation. The
magnitude of the flood hazard is the regulatory floodplain. The regulatory floodplain is defined
as the area inundated by the runoff from the rainfall having a one-percent chance of occurring in
any given year. Although flooding is an identified hazard, the effects have been minimal except
for a few locations in the County. The regulatory floodplain is identified in the County’s Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as Zone A and Zone AE. The following chart describes the
FIRM’s flood zones.
Table 3-1
FLOOD ZONES
The 100-year or Base Floodplain. There are seven types of A zones:
A
A1-30
The base floodplain mapped by approximate methods, i.e., BFEs are not determined. This is often
called an unnumbered A zone or an approximate A zone.
These are known as numbered A zones (e.g., A7 or A14). This is the base floodplain where the firm
shows a BFE (old format).
AE
The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE zones are now used on new
format FIRMs instead of A1-30 zones.
AO
The base floodplain with sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding. Base flood depths (feet above
ground) are provided.
AH
Shallow flooding base floodplain. BFE's are provided.
A99
Area to be protected from base flood by levees or Federal flood protection systems under
construction. BFEs are not determined.
AR
The base floodplain that results from the de-certification of a previously accredited flood protection
system that is in the process of being restored to provide a 100-year or greater level of flood
protection
Zone A
V
The coastal area subject to velocity hazard (wave action) where BFEs are not determined on the
FIRM.
VE
The coastal area subject to velocity hazard (wave action) where BFEs are provided on the FIRM.
Zone V and VE
Zone B and
Zone X
(shaded)
Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floods. B
zones are also used to designate base floodplains or lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from the
100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than
1 square mile.
Zone C and
Zone X
(unshaded)
Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depiction FIRMs as exceeding the 500-year flood level. Zone C may
have ponding and local drainage problems that do not warrant a detailed study or designation as base
floodplain. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500-year flood.
Zone D
Creek County
Area of undetermined but possible flood hazards.
20
A typical flood hazard would be an event where rainfall causes runoff to exceed the creek channel
capacity spilling runoff into the floodplain fringe, the area between the creek channel and the
edge of the regulatory floodplain. This area of inundation would still be regulated by the
County’s (and each community’s) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance where new buildings are
protected under the ordinance and older structures are addressed below in section 3.2.1.4. The
worst case flood event would be where rainfall occurs causing runoff to exceed the regulatory
floodplain, thereby inundating areas and possibly structures outside the areas regulated by the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, the ordinance adopted by Creek County and the
communities as part of their participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. A proposed
action plan will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better
document typical and much worse events.
3.2.1.4
Historically, the County has recognized flooding as a hazard. The County joined
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1987, adopting a Flood Damage Prevention
Resolution, and requiring that all future development be built one foot above the 100-year base
flood elevation. According to the National Climatic Data Center, from 1950 through 2010,
Creek County has had 78 flood events, causing an estimated $10,780,000 in total damages. There
are five repetitive loss structures in the Creek County that are insured through the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Appendix 6 summarizes previous occurrences of this hazard.
3.2.1.5
The probability of future flooding from the regulatory floodplain is statistically a
one-percent chance of occurring in any given year, the 100-year floodplain. The County and
participating communities require all new development to develop in compliance with their flood
damage prevention ordinance. Therefore, new development will not cause an increase in the
flood hazard by not increasing the hazard on to adjacent property and building new structures
above the regulatory flood elevation; both provisions of the ordinance. So the probability of
future flood damage should not increase with future development. According to the likelihood
rating from Appendix 6, the likelihood of a flood hazard in the County is “highly likely”.
3.2.1.6
Flooding can take many forms including river floods (riverine) and creeks and
flash floods. The most likely event for serious flooding would be flash flooding due to storm
water drainage backup caused by a large amount of rain from a thunderstorm. Flash floods occur
with little or no warning and can reach peak flow within a few minutes. Waters from flash floods
move with great force and velocity and can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings, and
sweep away bridges. These walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 30 feet and generally carry
large amounts of debris. Most flood deaths are due to flash floods.
The low-lying areas in the flood plains would be more susceptible to flooding. Roadways in the
area are vulnerable and have a history of having to be closed during flooding events. This can
cause what is usually temporary interruptions to the highway and road system and has the
potential to isolate a community for a period of time. Water Wells, houses, utility lines and sewer
systems are damaged by flood waters. This causes the citizens to be without power, homes and in
many cases people must be relocated to other areas.
Creek County
21
Table 3-2
Factor
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE FLOOD HAZARD
Effect
The most obvious contributing factor. As the rate of precipitation increases, so to
does its ability to outpace the ability of the watershed to absorb it. This is the
Precipitation Rate dominant factor in flash flooding events, and can overwhelm any or all of the
following factors.
Storm cells that follow each other (much like box cars on a train) can repeatedly
Training Echoes deposit large amounts of water on the same watershed, overwhelming its ability to
handle runoff.
Steeper topography (hills, canyons, etc.) will move runoff into waterways more
Slope of
quickly, resulting in a quicker, flashier response to precipitation.
Watershed
Longer, narrower watersheds will tend to “meter out” runoff so that water arrives
from down shed (nearer to the mouth of the stream) areas faster than from up shed
Shape of
areas. In watersheds that are more square or circular than elongated, runoff tends
Watershed
to arrive in the main stem at the same time, intensifying the response. This factor
becomes more significant with larger watersheds.
Saturated or near-saturated soils can greatly reduce the rate at which water can
Saturation of Soils soak into the ground. This can increase runoff dramatically.
Extremely dry soils can develop a pavement or “crust” that can be resistant to
infiltration. This is especially true in areas of recent wildfire, where plant oils or
Hardened Soils
resins may cause the soil to be even more water-resistant.
The urban environment usually intensifies the response to heavy precipitation. The
two dominant urban factors are: 1) increased pavement coverage, which prevents
infiltration and dramatically increases runoff; and 2) Urban systems are designed
Urbanization
to remove water from streets and byways as quickly as possible. This accelerates
the natural response to precipitation by placing runoff in waterways much more
quickly.
The vast majority of flash flood related deaths occur in vehicles. Many of these
Low-water
deaths occur at low-water crossings where the driver is unaware of the depth of
crossings
the water or the consequences of driving into it.
It is estimated that 11 % of the improved property (2711 parcels) in the County are located in the
100 year floodplain. It is unknown the number of people that reside in these residences; these
structures are valued at $240 million dollars.
3.2.2
Tornado Hazard
3.2.2.1
A tornado is a rapidly rotating vortex or funnel of air extending to the ground
from a cumulonimbus cloud. When the lower tip of a vortex touches earth, the tornado becomes
a force of destruction. The path width of a tornado is generally less than a half-mile, but the path
length can vary from a few hundred yards to dozens of miles. A tornado moves at speeds from 30
to 125 mph, but can generate winds exceeding 300 mph.
3.2.2.2
Creek County is located west of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The following figure obtained
from the FEMA web site shows central Oklahoma, along with the area around Fort Worth Texas,
to be the area of highest number of recorded tornados per area in the country. Within Creek
County, no area of the County is any more or less at risk from the tornado hazard.
Creek County
22
3.2.2.3
The severity of tornados is measured on the Fujita Tornado Scale (see below).
Almost 70% of all tornadoes are measured F0 and F1 on the Fujita Tornado Scale, causing light
to moderate damage, with wind speeds between 40 and 112 miles per hour. F4 and F5 tornadoes
are considerably less frequent, but are the big killers. 67 percent of all tornado deaths were
caused by F4 and F5 storms, which represent only 1% of all tornadoes. From 1950 through 2010,
Creek County experienced four tornados with a Fujita Scale magnitude greater than F3.
Table 3-3
Fujita Tornado Scale
Category
Wind Speed (mph)
F0
Gale tornado (40-72)
F1
Moderate tornado (73-112)
F2
Significant tornado (113-157)
F3
Severe tornado (158-206)
F4
Devastating tornado (207-260)
Devastating: Well-constructed houses leveled, structures
with weak foundations blown off some distance, cars
thrown and large missiles generated
Incredible tornado (261-318)
Incredible: Strong frame houses lifted off foundations
and carried considerable distance to disintegrate,
automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of
100 yards, trees debarked
F5
Damage
Light: Damage to chimneys, tree branches, shallow-root
trees, sign boards
Moderate: Lower limit is beginning of hurricane wind
speed—surfaces peeled off roofs, mobile homes pushed off
foundations or overturned, cars pushed off roads
Considerable: Roofs torn off frame houses, mobile
homes demolished, boxcars pushed over, large trees
snapped or uprooted, light-object missiles generated
Severe: Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed
houses, trains overturned, most trees in forest uprooted,
cars lifted off the ground and thrown
On February 1, 2007, the Fujita scale was decommissioned in favor of the more accurate
Enhanced Fujita Scale, which replaces it. None of the tornadoes recorded on or before January
31, 2007 will be re-categorized. Therefore maintaining the Fujita scale will be necessary when
referring to previous events.
Creek County
23
Table 3-4: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale
Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale
Enhanced Fujita Category
Wind Speed (mph)
Potential Damage
EF0
65-85
Light damage: Peels surface off some roofs; some
damage to gutters or siding; branches broken off trees;
shallow-rooted trees pushed over.
EF1
86-110
Moderate damage: Roofs severely stripped; mobile
homes overturned or badly damaged; loss of exterior
doors; windows and other glass broken.
111-135
Considerable damage: Roofs torn off well-constructed
houses; foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes
completely destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted;
light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground.
EF3
136-165
Severe damage: Entire stories of well-constructed houses
destroyed; severe damage to large buildings such as
shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked; heavy
cars lifted off the ground and thrown; structures with weak
foundations blown away some distance.
EF4
166-200
Devastating damage: Well-constructed houses and whole
frame houses completely leveled; cars thrown and small
missiles generated.
>200
Incredible damage: Strong frame houses leveled off
foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly
through the air in excess of 100 m (109 yd); high-rise
buildings have significant structural deformation;
incredible phenomena will occur.
EF2
EF5
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Fujita_Scale
A typical tornado hazard would be an EF0 event, as defined in Table 3-3 above, the Enhanced
Fujita Tornado Scale. The worst case tornado hazard would be an EF5 event, as defined in Table
3-3 above. An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as
all hazards, to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.2.4
Map Number 6 in Appendix 1 shows past tornado events in Creek County.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, from 1950 through 2010, Creek County has
experienced 61 tornados, causing an estimated $51.9 million in property damage. The City of
Drumright was hit by an F-4 tornado in 1974, causing 13 deaths, 135 injuries, with $2.5 million
in damages. This tornado had such an impact on the community, Drumright Schools’ nickname
is the “Tornados”, and a caricature of tornado is painted on the water tower.
3.2.2.5
Meteorological conditions have not changed, so future tornado events should
occur at the same probability as previous events. No area of the County is any more or less at
risk from the tornado hazard. According to the likelihood rating from Appendix 6, the likelihood
of a tornado hazard in the County is “highly likely”.
3.2.2.6
Creek County is located in what is considered an active part of tornado alley.
Every structure in the County is vulnerable to tornadoes. Structures, automobiles, persons,
agriculture, and utilities can sustain damage from tornados. Utility service outages can affect
large segments of the population for long periods of time. Economic losses from homeowners
and businesses alike can be devastating. Food spoilage with lack of refrigeration, gas pumps not
Creek County
24
operating, and daily life activities can all come to a halt. People displaced from homes that are
damaged and destroyed also create a new set of challenges with the basics of food, shelter and
clothing.
On the lower end, damage from an F0 tornado with winds from 40-72 mph can result in
destruction of road signs, tall structures, trees, and possible damage to shingled roofs. Mid –range
F2 and F3 tornadoes with winds from 113-206 mph will result in considerable damage. Roofs
will be torn off structures, mobile homes completely demolished, most trees and plant life
destroyed, objects as big as cars thrown small distances (as well as other light missiles being
generated), and trains being blown over can result from these storms. The worst case is the F5
tornado with winds from 261-318 mph. Total destruction will occur in the path of the tornadoes,
which have been up to ½ mile wide in the past. Homes, automobiles, appliances, outbuildings,
and anything outdoors can be picked up and thrown long distances as large missiles. Most plant
life including lawns, shrubs and trees are completely destroyed.
Utility infrastructure such as power lines, substations, water towers, and water wells, are
vulnerable and can be severely damage or destroyed from a tornado. Emergency vehicles
responding to the devastated areas can have trouble responding due to down power lines and
debris in roadways. Livestock is vulnerable during tornado events and are often killed since there
is little protection for the animals on the open range. People caught in the path of a tornado who
don’t take shelter have the potential of being injured or killed. Residents most vulnerable to
tornadoes are those living in mobile homes.
Historically the tornado will move in a southwest to northeast direction, but can move in any
direction. Consequently, vulnerability of humans and property is difficult to evaluate since the
tornadoes form at different strengths, in random locations, and create narrow paths of destruction.
Advances in meteorology and the use of Doppler radar allow efficient prediction of tornado
formation before they occur. A network of storm watchers attempt to identify funnel clouds and
report to various networks to alert the population. Even though these advances have significantly
improved the available response time, tornadoes can still occur unexpectedly and without
warning.
Utilizing storm spotters and early warning systems, county residents can take appropriate
precautions during these events. As a result, casualty rates are low. The popularity of
mobile/manufactured housing has increased susceptibility of existing structures to tornadoes. The
use of better building techniques, tie-down systems and the availability of storm shelters all help
mitigate losses in the county.
3.2.3
High Wind Hazard
3.2.3.1
Wind is defined as the motion of air relative to the earth’s surface. Extreme
windstorm events are associated with cyclones, severe thunderstorms, and accompanying
phenomena such as tornadoes and downbursts. Winds vary from zero at ground level to 200 mph
in the upper atmospheric jet steam at 6 to 8 miles above the earth’s surface. The mean annual
wind speed in the mainland United States is reported by FEMA to be 8 to 12 mph, with frequent
speeds of 50 mph and occasional wind speeds of greater than 70 mph. Oklahoma wind speeds
average 10 miles per hour.
3.2.3.2
The location of this hazard is uniform over the entire County area. No area of the
County is more of less at risk from a high wind hazard than another.
Creek County
25
3.2.3.3
The magnitude of the high wind hazard is categorized on various wind scales,
such as the Beaufort, Saffir-Simpson, and the Fujita measurement scales. The tables below
containing the Beaufort and Saffir-Simpson scales show that there is little consensus of opinion as
to what wind speeds produce various damages. (The Fujita Scale is shown in the section 3.2.2,
“Tornado Hazard”). The National Weather Service (NWS) issues Severe Thunderstorm
Warnings whenever a thunderstorm is forecast to produce wind gusts to 58 miles per hour (50
knots) or greater and/or hail one inch in diameter or larger. Hail size increased from ¾ inch to
one inch on January 5, 2010, for warning issues. The hail hazard will be addressed in Section
3.2.5.
Table 3-5
Beaufort Scale
Force
Wind Speed (mph)
9
47-54
10
11
55-63
64-75
12
75+
Damages
Strong gale: Chimneys blown down, slate and tiles torn
from roofs
Whole gale: Trees broken or uprooted
Storm: Trees Uprooted, cars overturned
Severe Storm: Devastation is widespread,
Buildings destroyed
Table 3-6
Saffir-Simpson Scale
Category
Wind Speed
(mph)
Storm Surge
(feet)
1
74-95
4- 5
2
96-110
6-8
3
111-130
9-12
4
131-155
13-18
5
155+
18+
Damages
Minimal: Trees, shrubbery, unanchored mobile homes,
and some signs damaged, no real damage to structures
Moderate: Some trees toppled, some roof coverings
damaged, major damage to mobile homes
Extensive: Large trees are toppled, some structural
damage to roofs, mobile homes destroyed, structural
damage to small homes and utility buildings
Extreme: Extensive damage to roofs, windows, and
doors, roof systems on small buildings completely fail,
some curtain walls fall
Catastrophic: Roof damage is considerable and
widespread, window and door damage is severe,
extensive glass failure, entire buildings could fall
A typical high wind hazard would be a Saffir-Simpson Scale category 1 event, as defined in
Table 3.3 above, the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The worst case high wind hazard would be a SaffirSimpson Scale category 5 event, as defined in Table 3.3 above. A proposed action plan will be
included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document typical
and much worse events.
3.2.3.4
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 287 recorded
high winds events during the period of 1950 through 2010, causing an estimated $1,916,000 in
property damage.
Creek County
26
3.2.3.5
The majority of the United States is at some risk of high wind hazards, including
Creek County. Meteorological conditions have not changed so future events should occur at the
same probability as the previous events. According to the likelihood rating from Appendix 6, the
likelihood of a high wind hazard in the County is “highly likely”.
3.2.3.6
Property damage and loss of life from windstorms are increasing due to a variety
of factors. Use of manufacturing housing and mobile homes is on an upward trend, and this type
of structure provides less resistance to wind than conventional construction. With the
deteriorating condition of older homes, and the increased use of aluminum-clad mobile homes,
and poorly designed homes, the impacts of wind hazards will likely continue to increase.
Winds are always part of severe storms such as tornadoes and blizzards, but do not have to
accompany a storm to be dangerous. Down-slope windstorms, straight-line winds, and
microbursts can all cause death, injury, and property damage. Very little available data exists
separate from thunderstorms or tornado data. Any efforts made to mitigate for tornadoes or
thunderstorm winds should address the hazard of high winds.
Extreme winds can cause several kinds of damage to a building. The diagram below shows how
extreme winds affect a building and helps explain why these winds cause buildings to fail. Wind
speeds, even in these extreme wind events, rapidly increase and decrease. An obstruction, such as
a house, in the path of the wind causes the wind to change direction. This change in wind
direction increases pressure on parts of the house. The combination of increased pressures and
fluctuating wind speeds creates stress on the house that frequently causes connections between
building components to fail. For example, the roof or siding can be pulled off or the windows can
be pushed in.
Diagram of Windstorm Effects
Buildings that fail under the effects of extreme winds often appear to have exploded, giving rise
to the misconception that the damage is caused by unequal wind pressures inside and outside the
building. This misconception has led to the myth that during an extreme wind event, the windows
and doors in a building should be opened to equalize the pressure. In fact, opening a window or
door allows wind to enter a building and increases the risk of building failure.
Damage can also be caused by flying debris (referred to as windborne missiles). If wind speeds
are high enough, missiles can be thrown at a building with enough force to penetrate windows,
walls, or the roof. For example, an object such as a 2” x 4” wood stud weighing 15 pounds, when
carried by a 250-mph wind, can have a horizontal speed of 100 mph and enough force to
penetrate most common building materials used in houses today. Even a reinforced masonry wall
will be penetrated unless it has been designed and constructed to resist debris impact during
Creek County
27
extreme winds. Because missiles can severely damage and even penetrate walls and roofs, they
threaten not only buildings but the occupants as well.
In addition to structural issues, high winds can affect electrical and other utilities with service
outages. Power lines can ground out or knocked down causing loss of electrical service. Travel
can be disrupted with the loss of stop lights, street lights and dangerous cross winds making travel
difficult. There could also be loss of water, sewer, and communications abilities.
3.2.4
Lightning Hazard
3.2.4.1
Lightning is a discharge of atmospheric electricity, accompanied by a vivid flash
of light, from a thunderstorm, frequently from one cloud to another, sometimes from a cloud to
the earth. The sound produced by the electricity passing rapidly through the atmosphere causes
thunder.
Within the thunderstorm clouds, rising and falling air causes turbulence which results in a build
up of a static charge. The negative charges concentrate in the base of the cloud. Since like
charges repel, some of the negative charges on the ground are pushed down away from the
surface, leaving a net positive charge on the surface. Opposite charges attract, so the positive and
negative charges are pulled toward each other. This first, invisible stroke is called a stepped
leader. As soon as the negative and positive parts of the stepped leader connect there is a
conductive path from the cloud to the ground and the negative charges rush down it causing the
visible stroke. Thunder is caused by extreme heat associated with the lightning flash. In less than
a second, the air is heated from 15,000 to 60,000 degrees. When the air is heated to this
temperature, it rapidly expands. When lightning strikes very close by, the sound will be a loud
bang, crack or snap. Thunder can typically be heard up to 10 miles away. During heavy rain and
wind this distance will be less, but on quiet nights, when the storm is many miles away, thunder
can be heard at longer distances.
3.2.4.2
County is more of less at risk from a lightning hazard than another.
3.2.4.3
The type of lightning is a measure of the severity of the lightning hazard. Cloudto-ground is the more severe type is terms of potential cause of damage. The table below from
the National Climatic Data Center shows the types and frequency categories of lightning. The
more severe type of lightning; coupled with an increased frequency, pose a greater lightning
hazard. Although lighting is an identified hazard in the County, the effects have been minimal
and the consensus of the CCEMAC that lightning events is just under-reported.
Lightning strikes can also cause high-voltage power surges that have the ability to seriously
damage equipment and valuable data if surge protection devices are not installed properly.
Property damage from power surges and resulting fires can destroy not only the electronics in
private homes, but also unprotected PBXs, telecommunications equipment, wireless systems, and
radio base stations.
A typical lightning hazard would be lightning that stays in the air, not touching the ground. The
worst case lightning event would be a cloud to ground lightning type where the lightning strikes a
large public gathering location, which could result in mass causalities. An action plan item will
be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document
typical and much worse events.
Creek County
28
Type
Table 3-7: Type of Lightning
Contraction
Definition
Cloud to Ground
In Cloud
Cloud to Cloud
CG
IC
CC
Cloud to Air
CA
Frequency
Occasional
Frequent
Continuous
Lightning occurring between cloud and ground.
Lightning occurring within the cloud.
Streaks of lightning reaching from one cloud to another.
Streaks of lightning which pass from a cloud to the air,
but do not strike the ground.
Table 3-8: Frequency of Lightning
Contraction
Definition
OCNL
FRQ
CONS
Less than 1 flash per minute.
About 1 to 6 flashes per minute
More than 6 flashes per minute.
3.2.4.4
For Creek County, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports five
lightning events during the 61 year period from 1950 through 2010, causing $268,000 in property
damage. With the frequent wind and thunderstorm activity the county experiences, it is certain
that lightning strikes occurred more often, but were just not all reported.
3.2.4.5
Meteorological conditions have not changed so future events should occur at the
likelihood of a lightning hazard in Creek County is “unlikely”.
3.2.4.6
The largest vulnerability to lightning is the potential loss of human life. Property
damage can also occur to structures, electrical equipment, water wells, etc. Anyone outdoors
during a thunderstorm is exposed and at risk of injury from lightning. Most people are injured or
killed by lightning will participating in some form of recreation. Some of the area swimming
pools and water parks are installing early warning devices for the danger of lightning strikes.
Damage to trees and homes would generally be under $1,000 if a strike did occur.
3.2.5
Hail Storm Hazard
3.2.5.1
Hail is frozen water droplets formed inside a thunderstorm cloud. They are
formed during the strong updrafts of warm air and downdrafts of cold air, when the water
droplets are carried well above the freezing level to temperatures below 32 deg F, and then the
frozen droplet begins to fall, carried by cold downdrafts, and may begin to thaw as it moves into
warmer air toward the bottom of the thunderstorm. This movement up and down inside the
cloud, through cold then warmer temperatures, causes the droplet to add layers of ice and can
become quite large, sometimes round or oval shaped and sometimes irregularly shaped, before it
finally falls to the ground as hail.
3.2.5.2
County is more of less at risk from the hail storm hazard than another.
3.2.5.3
The severity of damage caused by hail storms depends on the hailstone sizes
(average and maximum), number of hailstones per unit area, and associated winds. The
magnitude of a hail storm is as follows;
Creek County
29
Table 3-9
HAILSTONE SIZES
Diameter
Example
Diameter
Example
1/4 inch
Pea
1 ¾ inches
Golf Ball
1/2 inch
Marble
2 ½ inches
Tennis Ball
3/4 inch
Penny
2 ¾ inches
Baseball
7/8 inch
Nickel
3 inches
Tea Cup
1 inch
Quarter
4 inches
Grapefruit
1 ½ inches
Ping Pong Ball
4 ½ inches
Softball
The extent of the hazard can range from damage through destruction of structures and personal
property to bodily injury, depending on the diameter. The National Climatic Data Center has
reported hail in the County up to 2 ¾ -inches in diameter.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issues Severe Thunderstorm Warnings whenever a
thunderstorm is forecast to produce wind gusts of 58 miles per hour (50 knots) or greater and/or
hail size one inch in diameter or larger. Prior to January 5, 2010 the criteria for hail was ¾ inch
or larger.
A typical hail storm hazard would be hailstones that are noticeable but cause no damage. The
worst case hail storm event would be a hail storm event where the hailstones exceed the
maximum diameter reported by a recording agency such as the National Climatic Data Center,
causing wide-spread structure damage and at a time of a large public outdoor gathering causing
injuries to persons not under cover of a substantial structure. A proposed action plan item will be
included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document typical
and much worse events.
3.2.5.4
According to the National Climatic Data Center, Creek County experienced 207
hail hazard events of hail diameter 1-inch and greater during the period from 1950 through 2010,
causing an estimated $365,000 in property damage.
3.2.5.5
likelihood of a future hail hazard in Creek County is “highly likely”.
3.2.5.6
Vulnerability is difficult to evaluate since hail occurs in random locations and
creates relatively narrow paths of destruction. Hail is capable of causing considerable damage to
crops, buildings, and vehicles, and occasionally death to farm animals. Hail can also strip leaves
and small limbs from non-evergreen trees. While large hail poses a threat to people caught
outside in a storm, it seldom causes loss of human life.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Costs and losses to agricultural and livestock producers
Reduced yields and crop loss
Injuries or loss of livestock
Damage to barns and other farm buildings
Damage to trees resulting in increased susceptibility to disease
Urban, residential, and commercial
Damage to buildings
Roofs
Creek County
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
Windows
Damage to automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, etc.
Disruptions to local utilities and services
Power
Communications
Transportation
Past storms in the Creek County have showed crops losses from slight damage of less than 10%
production loss to total devastation of the crop with 100% loss. Damage to vehicles can range
from several hundred dollars to total loss of the vehicle. At times when large parking lots or
dealerships get hit, losses can be in the millions of dollars. Loss from a major hailstorm
damaging automobiles and structures in a larger city could total in the tens of millions of dollars.
3.2.6
Winter Storm Hazard
3.2.6.1
All winter storms are accompanied by cold temperatures and blowing snow,
which can severely reduce visibility. A severe winter storm is one that drops 4 or more inches of
snow during a 12 –hour period, or 6 or more inches during a 24- hour span. An ice storm occurs
when freezing rain falls from clouds and freezes immediately on impact. All winter storms make
driving and walking extremely hazardous. The aftermath of a winter storm can impact a
community or region for days, weeks, and even months. Storm effects such as extreme cold,
flooding, and snow accumulation can cause hazardous conditions and hidden problems for people
in the affected area. People can become stranded on the road or trapped at home, without utilities
or other services. Residents, travelers and livestock may become isolated or stranded without
adequate food, water and fuel supplies. The conditions may overwhelm the capabilities of a local
jurisdiction.
Winter storms are considered deceptive killers as they indirectly cause
transportation accidents, and injury and death resulting from exhaustion/overexertion,
hypothermia and frostbite from wind chill, and asphyxiation; house fires occur more frequently in
the winter due to the lack of proper safety precautions while using home heating equipment.
3.2.6.2
County is more of less at risk from the winter storm hazard than another.
3.2.6.3
A winter storm can range from moderate snow (2 to 4 inches over 12 to 24 hours)
to blizzard conditions (4 to 6 inches over 12 to 24 hours) with high winds, freezing rain or sleet,
heavy snowfall with blinding wind-driven snow and extremely cold temperatures that lasts
several days. Some winter storms may be large enough to affect several states while others may
affect only a single community. All winter storms are accompanied by cold temperatures and
blowing snow, which increases the severity of the winter storm.
The Balthrop Ice Scale attempts to quantify the severity of the winter storm hazard. The scale is
shown in Table 3-12.
Creek County
31
Level
Table 3-10: The Balthrop Ice Scale
Cause
Effect
Level 1; Nuisance Event,
No Major Impact
Freezing rain and sleet, but
little ice accumulation.
Roads not hazardous. Ice
forming on grass.
Little to no effect on the State of
Oklahoma.
Level 2; Minor Event,
Caution Advised
No measurable ice. Black ice
on roads and bridges. Winter
Weather Advisory.
Untreated roadways and bridges may
become hazardous and slick. Livestock
may need additional supplemental feed.
Ice accumulations of ¼ to ½
inches. Reduced visibility.
Winter Storm Warning.
Widespread hazardous road conditions.
Travel discouraged. Isolated power
outages because of down power lines from
ice accumulations. Tree damage.
Livestock loss potential increases.
Supplemental feed necessary.
Crippling event. Winds over
35 mph. Little to no
visibility. Ice accumulations
of more than ½ inch.
Blizzard Warning.
Road conditions hazardous to impassable.
People and livestock isolated. Widespread
power and utility outages. Infrastructure
damage. High potential for loss of
livestock. Structures threatened from
accumulating ice. Communications
infrastructure lost from ice accumulation.
May be a long lasting event.
Level 3; Major Event,
Isolated Emergency
Conditions in the State of
Oklahoma
Level 4; Extreme Event,
The State of Oklahoma
Under Full State of
Emergency
A typical winter storm hazard would be a Level 1 event, as defined by the Balthrop Ice Scale, a
nuisance event. The worst case winter storm hazard would be a Level 4 event, where
transportation is stopped, widespread power outages, livestock loss is likely, and the duration may
be long. An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all
hazards, to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.6.4
According to the National Climatic Data Center, 30 snow and ice events were
reported in Creek County from 1950 through 2010, causing an estimated $50,155,000 of property
damage. The total areas affected within the county were not reported, but estimated to have
affected large areas of the County.
3.2.6.5
likelihood of a winter storm hazard in Creek County is “highly likely”.
3.2.6.6
Creek County is affected periodically by heavy snow and ice that cause damage.
Trees and power lines fall due to the weight of ice and snow causing damage to their
surroundings as well as blocking streets and roads. Icy roads cause accident rates to increase and
impair the ability for emergency vehicles to respond which can result in more injuries and a
higher loss of life.
Winter storms can range from accumulating snow and/or ice over just a few hours to blizzard
conditions with blinding wind-driven snow that can last several days. The aftermath from a
damaging winter storm can continue to impact a region for weeks and even months. Economic
losses can occur to livestock producers and any business in the affected areas. Water systems
Creek County
32
being shut down or frozen can disrupt social services, schools, homes, and businesses. Carbon
monoxide poisoning is always a possibility as homeowners and businesses use alternative heat
sources to keep warm. Personal health can be affected in a variety of ways including mental and
physical stress, frostbite or related injuries and inability to travel for care.
Cold waves pose a variety of threats to individuals and communities. The list below summarizes
some of the most common impacts of cold waves.
•
•
•
•
Costs and losses to livestock producers
o Loss of livestock due to exposure
o Greater mortality due to Increased vulnerability to disease
o Increased feed costs
o Reduced milk production
o Cost of supplemental water for livestock if onsite ponds and streams are frozen
o Machinery and farm vehicles that will not operate in cold weather
Urban, residential, and commercial impacts
o Availability of water for municipal use due to frozen and burst water lines
o Homes with alternative energy sources
o House fires from overburdened chimneys
o Carbon monoxide poisoning from exhaust produced by heaters and generators
o Vehicles that will not operate in cold weather
o Cost of keeping transportation lines clear of ice and snow
Health
o Mental and physical stress in the form of "cabin fever"
o Frostbite and hypothermia
o Disruption of services
o Government offices and schools closed
o Garbage collection halted
General economic effects
o Revenue loss from lost production in business and industry
o Negative impact of economic multipliers
o Higher energy costs
o Damage to animal species
o Loss of wildlife, particularly if cold wave is coupled with prolonged snow cover
that makes sources of food unavailable
o Greater mortality due to Increased vulnerability to disease
o Loss of trees and woody shrubs that are not hardy enough to survive prolonged
exposure to cold temperatures, especially when soil moisture is low
o Pollution from increased energy production
A major winter storm can be lethal. Preparing for cold weather conditions and responding to them
effectively can reduce the dangers caused by winter storms.
Mitigating ice storm damage must be a joint effort by Local Community and County workers,
private land owners, and corporate entities. County workers simply do not have the available
resources to maintain all the wire systems in the County. Ordinances that require the maintenance
of trees and shrubs surrounding the area of electric and telephone wires are a first step toward
mitigating ice storm damage. Aggressive public education programs must be in place to alert
people to the possible damages to their and other’s property. Large corporations such as
Oklahoma Gas and Electric do not have the man-power or financial resources to maintain all their
lines. Regular trimming by all levels of participants can substantially reduce the damage caused
by future episodes.
Creek County
33
3.2.7
Heat Hazard
3.2.7.1
Temperatures that hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature
for the region and last for several weeks are defined as extreme heat. Humid or muggy
conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when a "dome" of high
atmospheric pressure traps hazy, damp air near the ground. Excessively dry and hot conditions
can provoke dust storms and low visibility. Drought occurs when a long period passes without
substantial rainfall. A heat wave combined with a drought is a very dangerous situation.
3.2.7.2
County is more of less at risk from the heat hazard than another.
3.2.7.3
The severity of the extreme heat is dependent on a combination of temperature
and humidity. High temperatures, when combined with high humidity can put an area in the
"Extreme Danger" category on the National Weather Service Heat Index scale. When extreme
heat is combined with drought, excessively dry hot conditions that contribute to a high risk of
life-threatening heat-related illnesses may result. The heat index is a measure of the severity of a
heat hazard. The heat index can be related to a range of specific heat disorders. Creek County
can experience heat index reading into the heat stroke range.
Table 3-11
Heat Index
Temperature (F) versus Relative Humidity (%)
°F
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
80
85
84
82
81
80
79
85
101
96
92
90
86
84
90
121
113
105
99
94
90
133
122
113
105
98
142
129
118
109
148
133
121
95
100
105
110
HI
80°F - 90°F
90°F - 105°F
105°F - 130°F
130°F or greater
135
Possible Heat Disorder:
Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity.
Sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion possible.
Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible.
Heat stroke highly likely with continued exposure.
A typical heat hazard would be to persons experiencing temperatures reaching 90 degrees, as
described in Table 3-14 above. The elderly population is most at risk from this high heat hazard.
The worst case heat hazard event would be to persons exposed to temperatures exceeding 130
degrees where heat stroke is likely. An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data
on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.7.4
According to the National Climatic Data Center, from 1950 through 2010, Creek
County experienced ten extreme heat events. No structural damage was recorded for the heat
hazard for the county.
Creek County
34
3.2.7.5
likelihood of a heat hazard in Creek County is “occasional”.
3.2.7.6
In a normal year, approximately 175 Americans die from extreme heat.
Between 1936 and 1975, nearly 20,000 people succumbed to the effects of heat and solar
radiation. From 1979-1999, excessive heat exposure caused 8,015 deaths in the United States.
On average approximately 400 people die each year from exposure to heat. In Oklahoma, July is
generally the hottest month of the year, followed by August.
Heat kills by pushing the human body beyond its limits. Under normal conditions, the body's
internal thermostat produces perspiration that evaporates and cools the body. However, in
extreme heat and high humidity, evaporation is slowed and the body must work extra hard to
maintain a normal temperature.
Most heat disorders occur because the victim has been overexposed to heat or has over exercised
for his or her age and physical condition. Other conditions that can induce heat-related illnesses
include stagnant atmospheric conditions and poor air quality.
Extreme heat can have a serious economic impact on a community. Increased demand for water
and electricity may result in shortages of resources. Moreover, damage to food supplies may
occur as the heat damages agricultural crops and livestock are susceptible to heat related injuries
or death.
Young children, elderly people, and those who are sick or overweight are more likely to become
victims to extreme heat. Other conditions that can limit the ability to regulate temperature
include fever, dehydration, heart disease, mental illness, poor circulation, sunburn, prescription
drug use, and alcohol use. Another segment of the population at risk is those whose jobs consist
of strenuous labor outside. When temperatures reach 90 degrees and above, people and animals
are more likely to suffer sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion.
Another extreme heat hazard is air pollution. During summer months, consistent high
temperatures and stagnant airflow patterns cause a build-up of hydrocarbons to form a dome-like
ceiling over large cities. The abundance of factories, automobiles, lawn equipment, and other
internal combustion machines emit high particulate matter that builds and worsens with the
increase in temperature. The resulting stagnant, dirty, and toxic air does not move away until a
weather front arrives to disperse it. When the particulate matter reaches a pre-determined level,
an ozone alert is issued for the Tulsa area and implementation measures are undertaken to reduce
the use of cars and the output of the offending chemicals. Ozone alerts usually include advisories
for the elderly and those with breathing difficulties to stay indoors in air-conditioned
environments.
3.2.8
Drought Hazard
3.2.8.1
A drought is a period of drier-than-normal conditions that results in water-related
problems. Precipitation (rain or snow) falls in uneven patterns across the country. When no rain
or only a small amount of rain falls, soils can dry out and plants can die. When rainfall is less
than normal for several weeks, months, or years, the flow of streams and rivers declines, water
levels in lakes and reservoirs fall, and the depth to water in wells decreases. If dry weather
persists and water supply problems develop, the dry period can become a drought. The first
evidence of drought usually is seen in records of decreased rainfall. Within a short period of time,
Creek County
35
the amount of moisture in soils can begin to decrease. The effects of a drought on flow in streams
and rivers or on water levels in lakes and reservoirs may not be noticed for several weeks or
months. Water levels in wells may not reflect a shortage of rainfall for a year or more after the
drought begins. A period of below-normal rainfall does not necessarily result in drought
conditions. Some areas of the United States are more likely to have droughts than other areas. In
humid, or wet, regions, a drought of a few weeks is quickly reflected in a decrease in soil
moisture and in declining flow in streams. In arid, or dry, regions, such as Oklahoma, people rely
on ground water and water in reservoirs to supply their needs. They are protected from shortterm droughts, but may have severe problems during long dry periods because they may have no
other water source if wells or reservoirs go dry.
3.2.8.2
County is more of less at risk from the drought hazard than another.
3.2.8.3
The Palmer Drought Index was developed in the 1960s and uses temperature and
rainfall information in a formula to determine dryness. It has become the semi-official drought
severity index. The Palmer Index is most effective in determining long term drought; a matter of
several months. It uses a 0 as normal, and drought is shown in terms of minus numbers; for
example, minus 2 is moderate drought, minus 3 is severe drought, and minus 4 is extreme
drought. NOAA has used this index to classify the drought hazard through the continental United
States. As of September, 2011, Creek County was in the severe to extreme severity range of the
Palmer Drought Index. The national map showing the September 2011 Palmer Drought Index is
shown below.
A typical drought hazard would be a mid-range to moderate Palmer Drought Index, where some
form of voluntary water rationing would be encouraged but not required, and the only damage
would be to under watered lawns. The worst case drought hazard event would be a Palmer
Drought index of negative 4.00 and below, an extreme drought, where it lasts for months to years.
An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards,
to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.8.4
One of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. history and the most severe and
devastating to Oklahoma was the decade-long drought in the 1930s that has become known as the
Dust Bowl. Reaching its peak from 1935 through 1938, high temperatures and low rainfall
combined to destroy crops and livestock. High winds literally blew the land away, causing
Creek County
36
massive soil erosion. Hundreds of small rural communities were ruined and about 800,000
people were displaced. The total expenditure by the American Red Cross for drought relief in
Oklahoma in 1930-1931 was the third largest ever in the nation.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 11 drought events in Creek
County from 1950 through 2010.
3.2.8.5
likelihood of a heat hazard in Creek County is “occasional”.
3.2.8.6
Lack of fresh water is damaging to livestock and crops. During the summer
months, temperatures in the Creek County area can easily reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Often these high temperatures will persist for many days and possibly for weeks. When these
high temperatures coincide with times of no rain, drought has been reported for areas of Creek
County. Drought conditions increase fire hazards and reduces water supply. Heat and drought
also effect local workforce capabilities. Workers exposed to these elements must be monitored
for heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Another problem associated with drought is stale water.
Areas of stale water are known to produce deadly bacteria.
Drought impacts in a number of ways, spanning all regions, and is capable of affecting the
economy as well as the environment. Specific impacts can include
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
reduced crop, rangeland;
increased livestock and wildlife mortality rates;
reduced income for farmers and agribusiness;
increased fire hazard;
reduced water supplies for municipal/industrial, agricultural and power uses;
damage to fish and wildlife habitat;
increased consumer prices for food;
reduced tourism and recreational activities;
unemployment;
reduced tax revenues because of reduced expenditures; and
foreclosures on bank loans to farmers and businesses.
The most direct impact of drought is economic rather than loss of life or immediate destruction of
property. While drought impacts in Oklahoma are numerous and often dependent upon the timing
and length of individual drought episodes, the greatest impacts of drought are usually experienced
in the agricultural community. In addition to the obvious direct losses of both crop and livestock
production due to a lack of surface and subsurface water, drought is frequently associated with
increases in insect infestations, plant disease, and wind erosion.
Of course, one of the most significant potential impacts of drought relates to public water supply.
In metropolitan areas, including Creek County, there may be a need to stop washing cars, cease
watering the grass and take other water conservation steps. In smaller communities, reduced flow
in rivers and streams can have a significant affect on the water amount allowed for municipal use.
Hot weather during the summer increases demand and subsequent use of supplies, as well as
evaporation. In turn, increased water demand can stress many smaller and/or antiquated delivery
and treatment facilities to the point of collapse. Prolonged drought has a much greater impact on
Creek County
37
rural communities, which usually rely on relatively small watersheds and are especially
vulnerable during such periods.
Water shortages can also affect fire fighting capabilities in both urban and rural settings through
reduced water flows and pressures. Most droughts dramatically increase the danger of fires on
wild land. Although drought can have serious impact during winter months, it is most often
associated with extreme heat. Wildlife, pets, livestock, crops, and humans are vulnerable to the
high heat that can accompany drought.
3.2.9
3.2.9.1
Soils and soft rock that tend to swell or shrink due to changes in moisture content
are commonly known as expansive soils. Changes in soil volume present a hazard primarily to
structures built on top of expansive soils. The most extensive damage occurs to highways and
streets. The effect of expansive soils are most prevalent in regions of moderate to high
precipitation, where prolonged periods of drought are followed by long periods of rainfall.
Expansive soils can be recognized either by visual inspection in the field or by conducting
laboratory analysis. Shales, clay shales, and residual soils containing smectite often have a
characteristic "popcorn" texture, especially in semiarid areas.
3.2.9.2
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified the soils in
Creek County. The expansive tendency of a soil is a function of its shrink-swell potential. The
locations of these types of soils are shown on Map Number 7 in Appendix 1.
The soil data for Creek County is from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data base. The
STATSGO data base is designed for multi-county resource planning, and is not detailed enough
for interpretations at the county level. The soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing
the more detailed SSURGO soil maps, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data base. The
STATSGO data base is raster GIS data; each map unit is assigned an attribute value by sampling
areas on more detailed maps and expanding the data statistically to characterize all map units.
Raster type data cannot be used for spatial analysis; however, it is shown in Map Number 7 for a
general location of expansive soils throughout the county.
3.2.9.3
The NRCS sorts this shrink-swell potential soil property in Creek County into
five categories; very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. This is the range of magnitude of
an expansive soils hazard. Shrink-swell potential categories are based on the change in length of
an unconfined clod as moisture content is increased from air-dry to field capacity. The categories
are very low, a change of less than 1%; low, 1 to 3%; moderate, 3 to 6%; high, 6 to 9%; and very
high, greater than 9%. Map Number 8 in Appendix 1 illustrates the scattered areas within the
County that have a high shrink-swell potential. Approximately 40% of the County falls into this
category.
A typical expansive soils hazard would be to structures built in areas of high shrink-swell
potential that were not built with any foundation displacement protection, such as post-tension
reinforcing in foundations. The worst case expansive soils hazard event would be to structures as
described above, but during extreme and extended drought conditions where the soils dry out to
such a depth causing voids to occur which would increase the circumstances for foundations to
deflect causing foundation and structure damage. An action plan item will be included to try to
collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document typical and much
worse events.
Creek County
38
3.2.9.4
No information is available for the Creek County area on how expansive soils
have damaged structures. This hazard develops gradually and thus not usually reported, largely
because a catastrophic expansive soils hazard event has not occurred
3.2.9.5
The soils’ properties have not changed so future occurrences of soils expansion
and contraction will continue. An estimate of future occurrences is rated as “unlikely”, shown in
the Likelihood Rating field in the Hazard Summary Table in Appendix 6, because no data is
reported for this hazard.
3.2.9.6
There is no need to address expansive soils in this plan due to the lack of data
related to damage and there is no justification for mitigating vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities
include structures with foundations such as homes and businesses, concrete slabs in driveways
and sidewalks, and parking lots. Asphalt surfaces such as highways and runways could be
affected. These structures are affected because expansive soils cause uneven settlement of the
soil under the structures’ foundations. This causes cracking and damage to the foundation and
structure above the foundation, such as a building’s wall and a road’s pavement.
3.2.10
Wildfire Hazard
3.2.10.1
Wildfires are defined as the uncontrolled burning of highly vegetated areas,
usually in forests and wooded areas. Grass fires in Creek County pose a problem every year.
3.2.10.2
According to County Emergency Management, fire locations are more frequent
around the more populated areas; however, all locations throughout the county are prone to grass
fires. The locations of the fire departments in Creek County are shown on Map Number 8 in
Appendix 1.
The urban interface is where the main risk and vulnerability is, and exits around the incorporated
communities in Creek County. The following chart is a display of the urban interface location, in
black, around the incorporated Creek County communities.
Urban Interface
Creek County
39
3.2.10.3
The County’s susceptibility to a wildfire is dependent upon seasonal
environmental factors such as current and antecedent weather (including wind velocity and
humidity), fuel types, moisture, temperature, and live and dead vegetation. Changes in these
factors raise or lower the fire danger rating throughout the county. A typical wildfire hazard
would be a grass fire, in which a Fire Department is dispatched to put out the fire before it causes
any damage to crops, structures, or persons. The worst case wildfire scenario would be an event
that could not be controlled before it overwhelms a community, causing damage to crops,
structures, and persons. Although the number of incidences indicate that wildfires are likely to
occur, most wildfires are small in size and contained by local resources. Therefore, the fire
departments do not consider wildfires to be a major threat to the County overall. An action plan
item will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards, to better
document typical and much worse events.
3.2.10.4
In Creek County, municipal and rural volunteer fire departments respond to
numerous grass fires every year. The participating communities’ fire departments do not have
data to quantify this, but committee members report their municipal fire departments respond to
many, more than one, grass fires every year.
3.2.10.5
Creek County Fire Departments are continuing campaigns to educate the public
on the causes and effects of fires. However, all fires cannot be prevented so this hazard will
continue. The likelihood rating for wild fires in the County is “highly likely”. This estimate of
future occurrences is taken from the Likelihood Rating scale in the Hazard Summary Table in
Appendix 6 because the committee members report numerous fire department runs per year
responding to grass fires.
3.2.10.6
Periods of drought, dry conditions, high temperatures, and low humidity set the
stage for wildfires. Areas along railroads and people whose homes are in woodland settings
(especially cedar woodlands) in rural areas have an increased risk of wildfire. The sparsely
populated tall grassed range lands, are capable of experiencing large sweeping fires. Ironically,
fire suppression is capable of creating larger fire hazards, because live and dead vegetation is
allowed to accumulate in areas where fire has been excluded. The especially large accumulations
of deadfall throughout the county resulting from the severe ice storms of 2000 and 2007, is
becoming a concern to firefighters.
People start more than four out of every five wildfires, usually as debris burns, arson, or
carelessness. Lightning strikes are another leading cause of wildfires. Other sources of ignition
include railroads, catalytic converters on automobiles, and spontaneous ignition of hay bales.
Wildfires that do not encounter a human population are difficult to calculate damages. Homes
and businesses that are burned in naturally occurring fires are usually privately owned. When
wild lands are destroyed by fire, the resulting erosion can cause heavy silting of streams, rivers,
and reservoirs. Serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power production then occurs.
This vulnerability to wildfire results in over 18,000 wildfires in the State each year. These fires
burn about 300,000 acres. Over 97% of these wildfires are human caused. In fact, Oklahoma’s
fire risk is more closely associated with the presence of people than with fire danger or fuel types.
Since human activity accounts for such a high percentage of the wildfires, there is limited
opportunity for mitigation through public awareness and education.
An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data on this wildfire hazard within the
County to better document the impact of wildfires on the County.
Creek County
40
Oklahoma Wildfires by Cause
Lightning
Campfire
Smoking
Debris
Arson
Equipment
Railroads
Children
Misc
Arson is also a large proportion of the percentage of wildfires. Based on the above data,
Oklahoma has a high probability of future hazard events. On average, fires kill nearly 5,500
Americans each year. Over 30,000 people are injured in fires annually. In the United States,
someone dies in a fire every 40 minutes. Most often, victims are children or the elderly. Nearly 25
percent of the fires that kill young children are started by children playing with fire.
Approximately 1,300 senior citizens die in fires annually. Approximately three-quarters of all fire
fatalities occur in residential dwellings. Each year in the US, fire causes over $2 billion worth of
damage to homes.
3.2.11
Earthquake Hazard
3.2.11.1
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and
shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate
tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface move slowly over,
under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are
locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows
strong enough, the plates break free causing the ground to shake. Most earthquakes occur at the
boundaries where the plates meet; however, some earthquakes occur in the middle of plates.
Earthquakes strike suddenly, without warning. Earthquakes can occur at any time of the year and
at any time of the day or night. On a yearly basis, 70 to 75 damaging earthquakes occur
throughout the world. Estimates of losses from a future earthquake in the United States approach
$200 billion. There are 45 states and territories in the United States at moderate to very high risk
from earthquakes, and they are located in every region of the country. California experiences the
most frequent damaging earthquakes; however, Alaska experiences the greatest number of large
earthquakes—most located in uninhabited areas. The largest earthquakes felt in the United States
were along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri, where a three-month long series of quakes from
1811 to 1812 included three quakes larger than a magnitude of 8 on the Richter scale. These
earthquakes were felt over the entire Eastern United States, with Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi experiencing the strongest ground
shaking.
3.2.11.2
The faults most likely to affect Oklahoma are the New Madrid Fault, centered in
the Missouri Bootheel region, and the Meers Fault, located in southwestern Oklahoma near
Lawton. The distance from the Missouri Bootheel region to Pawhuska, OK, (in the center of
Creek County) is approximately 370 miles, and the distance from the Meers fault region to
Pawhuska is approximately 180 miles.
Creek County
41
3.2.11.3
The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in several ways. The magnitude
of an earthquake, usually expressed by the Richter Scale, is a measure of the amplitude of the
seismic waves. The Richter Scale, named after Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute
of Technology, is the best known scale for measuring the magnitude of earthquakes. The scale is
logarithmic. An earthquake of magnitude 2 is the smallest earthquake normally felt by people.
Earthquakes with a Richter value of 6 or more are commonly considered major; great earthquakes
have magnitude of 8 or more on the Richter scale.
Table 3-12
The Richter Scale
Magnitude
Description
1 to 3
3 to 4
5
6
Recorded on local seismographs, but generally not felt.
Often felt, with little to no damage reported.
Felt widely, slight damage near epicenter.
Damage to poorly constructed buildings and other structures within 10 kms.
"Major" earthquake. Causes serious damage up to 100 km (recent Taiwan, Turkey,
Kobe, Japan, Iran and California earthquakes).
"Great" earthquake, great destruction, loss of life over several 100 km (1906 San
Francisco, 1949 Queen Charlotte Islands).
Rare great earthquake, major damage over a large region over 1000 km (Chile
1960, Alaska 1964, and west coast of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, 1700)
7
8
9
The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping, shown below, shows Creek County in the 2%g
(peak acceleration), 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years area. According to the FEMA
386-2, “Understanding Your Risks”, Step 1; areas with 2%g peak acceleration or less have a
relatively low seismic risk, and an earthquake risk assessment is not warranted.
A typical earthquake event would be a magnitude 1 to 3 on the Richter Scale, which would be
largely unfelt and no damage. The worst case earthquake hazard would be a magnitude 9 on the
Richter Scale, causing a large amount of structure damage and personal injury over a large area.
An action plan item will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all hazards,
to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.11.4
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been no earthquake
events in Creek County from 1950 through 2010. On November 5, 2011, the state experienced its
largest and third largest earthquakes in state history. A 4.8 magnitude earthquake occurred near
Creek County
42
Prague at about 2:12 am, and then a 5.6 magnitude earthquake occurred near Sparks at about
10:53 pm. Both earthquakes were centered in Lincoln County, a county southwest of Creek
County in central Oklahoma. The later earthquake surpassed the then largest earthquake in state
history, a 5.5 magnitude earthquake near El Reno on April 9, 1952.
3.2.11.5
However, most earthquakes in the state are not felt. The most likely major
earthquake event that could impact the area would probably originate in the New Madrid Fault
Zone, which has been relatively quiet for 150 years. Seismologists estimate the probability of a 6
to 7 magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid area in the next 50 years to be higher than 90%.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been no earthquake events in Creek
County from 1950 through 2010; a likelihood rating of “unlikely”. This estimate of future
occurrences is shown in the Likelihood Rating field in the Hazard Summary Table in Appendix 6.
3.2.11.6
Because the extreme infrequency of major events in or near Creek County, the
impact of the earthquake hazard does not justify mitigating vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities would
include all structures, homes, businesses and transportation infrastructure. Earthquake insurance
is the only viable mitigation activity. Insurance would not lessen the event; just keep the hazard
from becoming a financial disaster.
3.2.12
3.2.12.1
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that, if released or misused, can
pose a threat to the environment or human health. These chemicals are used in industry,
agriculture, medicine, research, and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of
explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. These
substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or chemical accidents at
plant sites. In the State of Oklahoma, communities are required to list facilities that either use or
store Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) in their Emergency Operations Plans (EOP). EHS
facilities are a subset of the Tier 2 facilities; and like the Tier 2 facilities, EHS facilities are
reported annually to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality by the users. The EHS
facilities are incorporated into the Creek County plan update.
3.2.12.2
The locations of the Creek County EHS facilities are listed in the following table,
and shown in Map Number 9 in Appendix 1.
Table 3-13
Creek County EHS Sites
Facility Name
AT&T - BRISTOW CO R64106
City of Bristow
City of Bristow
City of Bristow
City of Bristow
City of Bristow
City of Bristow
J-W Manufacturing Company
AT&T - OK3240
AT&T - DRUMRIGHT CO -
Creek County
Street Address
City
139 W 6TH AVE
Bristow
38500 E0820 Rd.
302 Weatherwood Way
37620 West Highway 16
300 Weatherwood Way
304 weatherwood Way
24658 South Highway 48
23630 S. 369th Ave.
3.0 MI SOUTH OF DEPEW,OK
112 N. PENN
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Depew
Drumright
43
R64118
BAKER PETROLITE Drumright,OK
Drumright Wastewater Plant
Drumright Water Plant
Level 3 Communications Drumright - DRMROKAX
AT&T - OK2210
Oklahoma Communication
System - Kellyville
AT&T - KIEFER CO - R66127
AT&T - OK0230
CareFusion
Oklahoma Communications Systems
- Mounds
AT&T - OK2260
AT&T - OILTON CO - R64142
Don Denney--Peterson Lease, well
#4, #18
AT&T - OK3230
AT&T - SAPULPA CO - R66150
FasCast Foundry
Nalco Plant 102
National Oilwell Varco Pump Plant
Smithco Engineering, Inc.
Thermal Specialties, Inc.
NE Corner of Junction of Hwy 33, Hwy
16 and Hwy 99
1101 North Texas
1606 West Broadway
Drumright
Drumright
Drumright
Rt 1 Box 124-5
Drumright
4MI W/O KLVL W/S 144
Kellyville
102 S. Main
Kellyville
634 E INDIANA AVE
KELLEYVILLE FT5S LIGHTGUIDE
400 East Foster Road
Kiefer
Kellyville
Mannford
15 E 13th Street
Mounds
Hwy 48, 8 Mi S Brisville
214 W. MAIN
Newby
Oilton
SW 1/4, Sec 33, T19N, R7E
Oilton
61 MI WEST OF SAPULPA,OK
302 S. MAIN
6107 West 71st Street
6717 S. 61 W. Ave
6750 South 57th West Avenue
6312 S. 39th Street
8181 South 88 West Ave.
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
Tulsa
3.2.12.3
The location and extent of the hazardous material hazard in Creek County are the
EHS fixed location sites. The sites include buildings or property where EHS materials are
manufactured or stored, and are regulated nationally under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and in Oklahoma by the Department of Environmental Quality.
A typical hazardous material hazard scenario would be an automobile accident where gasoline
(which is not an EHS) is spilled and the local fire department responds. The worst case scenario
would be responding to facility that contains a hazardous material that has not been properly
documented so the responders may not be properly prepared for the hazardous material they
would be encountering. A proposed action plan will be included to collect detailed data on this
hazard, as well as all hazards, to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.12.4
For the evaluation of previous occurrences of hazardous material events, traffic
accidents with gasoline spills were included in the number of hazardous material events
experienced by the County, in addition to responding to incidents at EHS facilities. Throughout
the County, municipal fire departments respond to more than one vehicle accidents with gasoline
spills per year. The participating communities’ fire departments do not have data to quantify this,
but committee members report their community’s fire department responds to numerous vehicle
accidents with gasoline spills every year. Several Creek County Fire Departments have
developed Hazardous Materials Standard Operating Guides. These guides provide Fire
Creek County
44
Department personnel with guidance and assistance in determining incident levels for response to
hazardous materials incidents.
3.2.12.5
Chemicals and hazardous materials are used throughout our society today, and
will continue to be used in the future. And Creek County will continue to be exposed to this
hazard. The likelihood rating for hazardous material events in the County is “highly likely”. This
estimate of future occurrences is taken from the Likelihood Rating scale in the Hazard Summary
Table in Appendix 6 because the committee members report numerous vehicle accidents with
gasoline spills every year.
3.2.12.6
Many parts of the County are susceptible to hazardous materials events due to the
high number of highly traveled roads and highways. Potential impacts include disruptions in
transportation if highways are shut-down. Local businesses and residences can be affected by the
roads being closed. Soils and waterways could become contaminated by spills, but are generally
contained and cleaned up by professional response teams.
3.2.13
Dam Break Hazard
3.2.13.1
A dam is defined as a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of
storage, control, or diversion of water. Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or
mine tailings.
A dam failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure resulting in downstream flooding. Dam
failures are primarily caused by hydrologic or structural deficiencies. A hydrologic deficiency is
inadequate spillway capacity, caused by excessive runoff from a large amount of precipitation.
Structural deficiencies include seepage, erosion, cracking, sliding, and overturning, mainly
caused by the age of a dam and lack of maintenance.
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board coordinates the Oklahoma Dam Safety Program to ensure
the safety of dams in the state. The program requires inspections every five years for low hazard
structures and every three years for significant hazard structures. The program requires annual
inspections for high hazard dams. Dams are designated as high hazard dams due to the presence
of occupied dwellings immediately downstream. The following table lists the 13 Creek County
dams in the program categorized as significant hazard or high hazard.
Creek County
45
Table 3-14
Creek County Dams in the Oklahoma Dam Safety Program
(Source: OWRB – 2011)
NAME
CREEK
CITY
Parthenia Lake
Sapulpa Lake
Sahoma Lake
SCS-Salt-Camp Creek
Site-12
SCS-Little Deep Fork
Site 33
SCS- Little Deep Fork
Site 36
Lake Massena
Mannford Lake
Boren Dam
Site 15
Site 28
OK-No-Name 037071
Heyburn Lake
Anderson Creek
Euchee Creek
Rock Creek
Tulsa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
HAZARD
CATEGORY
H
H
H
Camp Creek
Creek County
H
Sandy Creek Trib
Creek County
H
Sandy Creek
Creek County
H
Catfish Creek
Little Salt Creek
Middle Duck Creek
Bristow
Mannford
Creek County
H
S
S
East Spring Creek
Creek County
S
Little Deep Fork
Creek County
S
Childres Creek
Polecat Creek
Kiefer
Sapulpa
H
H
3.2.13.2
The dams listed in Table 3-10 above pose a high or significant risk, per the
OWRB, to occupied dwelling in Creek County. Their locations are shown in Map Number 10 in
Appendix 1. The location of the dam break hazard, the specific area of inundation from a failure
of any of these dams is not available from the Corps of Engineers or the OWRB. The 500-year
floodplain, downstream of the dam, was used to estimate the inundation area. The location of the
dam break hazard is shown in Map Number 11 in Appendix 1. A mitigation action to create a
dam inundation area map will be recommended.
3.2.13.3
For the extent of the dam break hazard, the specific area of inundation from a
failure of any of these dams is not available. The 500-year floodplain, downstream of the dam,
was used to estimate the inundation area. For the purposes of this hazard’s risk assessment, the
500-year floodplain downstream of these lakes is the extent of this hazard. The worst case
scenario of this hazard would be an unexpected failure of a high hazard dam, so the emergency
personnel could not effectively notify people in the area of inundation of the impending event. A
proposed action plan will be included to collect detailed data on this hazard, as well as all
hazards, to better document typical and much worse events.
3.2.13.4
Creek County has never been flooded by a dam failure. Its impact on the County
would be similar to the flood hazard. Nationally, the most famous dam break event occurred at
Johnstown, PA. The South Fork Dam was built across Little Conemaugh River 14 miles
upstream of Johnstown. In 1889, South Fork Dam failed, and the resulting flood on the Little
Conemaugh River caused over 2200 fatalities.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been no dam break events in Creek
County from 1950 through 2010.
Creek County
46
3.2.13.5
Never say never, but continued dam inspection and proper maintenance should
continue to keep these dams from failing. Communities in Creek County contract with private
engineering firms to annually inspect the dams as required and report to the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board. Communities that use impoundments from dams for a water source in the
County are responsible for any required maintenance. According to the County Emergency
Management Department,, there have been no dam breaks in Creek County from 1950 through
2010; a likelihood rating of “unlikely”. The likelihood of future hazard event occurrences are
shown in the Likelihood Rating field in the Hazard Summary Table in Appendix 6.
3.2.13.6
As long as dams exist so does the chance for failure. The Oklahoma Water
Resources Board (OWRB) coordinates the Oklahoma Dam Safety Program to ensure the safety of
more than 4,500 dams in the state that falls within its jurisdiction. Dams falling within the
OWRB’s jurisdiction are non-Federally constructed and maintained dams which are: 1) greater
than 6 feet in height with storage capacities of 50 acre-feet or more; and/or 25 feet or greater in
height with storage capacities of 15 acre-feet or more. The program requires inspections every
five and three years for low and significant hazard structures, respectively. It requires annual
inspection of the State’s high-hazard dams, so designated due to the presence of one or more
habitable structures downstream with loss of life and flooding likely to occur if a dam were to
fail.
Creek County has nine high hazard dams and four significant hazard dams that could possibly put
people and structures at risk, but there is no recorded history of dam failure in the County since
1950. Flooding potential exists if dam failure should occur at these high hazard dams. These
dams provide source water for public water systems. If a failure occurred, the potential exists to
have thousands of people, pets, and livestock would have a greatly reduced water supply for a
long period of time. Obviously the impact of this would be devastating and many people would
have to relocate to carry on normal lives. Disruption to businesses and schools would be
enormous. The economic impact of such an event would be impossible to predict.
The initial hazard classifications are based upon current conditions, including population and
land-use patterns below the dams. Such conditions can shift over time, such that a structure that is
not considered high-hazard may receive such designation in the future, should, for example,
dwellings be built within the floodplain below the dam. Other high-hazard dams may have such
designation lowered should land-use patterns change, reducing the threat of loss to life or
property. Mitigation aspects, such as relocations of vulnerable properties, can reduce the number
and magnitude of high-hazard dams. To protect vulnerable populations the State of Oklahoma
and Creek County, the following law is in place:
State Law 785:25-7. Warning and evacuation plans.
• Owners of existing or proposed dams classified as high hazard, regardless of the size of
such dams, and any other dam as determined by the Board, shall provide an adequate
warning system and written evacuation plan to protect downstream lives and property,
with a written description of said system and written evacuation plan to be approved by
and filed with the local Civil Defense authorities.
• Additionally, the written description of the warning system and approved evacuation plan
shall be filed with the Board.
Creek County
47
3.3
Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets
This section describes vulnerability in terms of the type and number of existing buildings and
critical facilities in the hazard location. The vulnerability analysis utilized FEMA publication
386-2, “Understanding Your Risks,” Step 3, in order to determine the building value and contents
value to determine a total value per building at risk from the hazard.
The Creek County Assessor classifies properties into three (3) types; residential, commercial, and
agricultural. A value for each property with a structure was determined by the assessor. The
contents value was determined as a percentage of the building value, based on the Contents Value
table in FEMA 386-2, Step 3.
The following table shows this information for all buildings in Creek County. This table will be
referred to for all hazards that do not vary by location throughout the county.
Table 3-15
TOTAL BUILDINGS IN COUNTY
Category
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Total
Number of
Structures
20,649
1384
2738
24,816
Structure Value ($$)
1,289,255,092
309,410,433
158,383,283
1,757,048,808
Flood hazards, dam break hazards, and hazards from expansive soils are the only three hazards
that vary in magnitude in a pre-determined location. A hypothetical tornado was analyzed in the
tornado hazard section. For these hazards, GIS models were used to determine the buildings in a
hazard location.
For each hazard, the assets (buildings) at risk from that hazard are tabularized in each hazard’s
section, or referred to the above table. The total number of buildings at risk, the building type,
the building value, its contents value, and the total value is shown. These tables follow the format
in FEMA 386-2, worksheets 3a “Inventory Assets”.
This assessment also analyses the critical facilities at risk from each hazard. Where a hazard
varies by location, these facilities’ locations are shown in relation to the hazard on a separate
map. Information on mobile homes is not tracked by the Creek County Assessor; therefore, it is
not included in the Creek County vulnerability assessment.
Facilities that are classified to be critical by Creek County are listed in the following table, and
shown on Map Number 4 in Appendix 1. These facilities are critical to the County in they
provide public safety and emergency response services to the public in the event of a hazard
occurrence or they are necessary to preserve welfare and quality of life to the community.
Creek County
48
TYPE
Table 3-16
COUNTY CRITICAL FACILITIES
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
City Government
City of Bristow City Hall
Town of Depew Town Hall
City of Drumright City Hall
Town of Kellyville Town Hall
Town of Kiefer Town Hall
City of Mannford City Hall
City of Oilton City Hall
Town of Mounds Town Hall
110 W 7th St
407 E Main
122 W Broadway
410 E Buffalo
401 E Indiana
300 Coonrod
101 W Main
1319 Commercial
Bristow
Depew
Drumright
Kellyville
Kiefer
Mannford
Oilton
Mounds
County Govt
Creek County Courthouse
Creek County Assessor
Creek County Emergency Mgmt
222 E Dewey
317 E Lee
10 S Oak
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Fire Department
City of Bristow Fire Department
Town of Depew Fire Department
City of Drumright Fire Department
Town of Kellyville Fire Dept
Town of Kiefer Fire Department
City of Mannford Fire Department
City of Oilton Fire Department
Town of Mounds Fire Department
115 E 6th St
205 W Main
120 W Broadway
422 E Buffalo
399 E Indiana
Bristow
Depew
Drumright
Kellyville
Kiefer
Mannford
Oilton
Mounds
Police Department
Water/Wastewater
Facility
Creek County
201 E Main
300 Commercial
108 W 7th St
124 W Broadway
410 E Buffalo
Bristow Police Department
Drumright Police Department
Kellyville Police Department
Kiefer Police Department
Mannford Police Department
Oilton Police Department
Mounds Police Department
302 Coonrod
101 W Main
1319 Commercial
Bristow Water
Bristow Wastewater
Depew Wastewater Facility
Drumright Water
Drumright Wastewater
Kellyville Wastewater
Kiefer Wastewater
Mannford Water
Mannford Wastewater
Oilton Wastewater
Mounds Wastewater
Bristow
Drumright
Kellyville
Kiefer
Mannford
Oilton
Mounds
Bristow
Bristow
Depew
Drumright
Drumright
Kellyville
Kiefer
Mannford
Mannford
Oilton
Mounds
49
Electric
Keystone Dam Generation Facility
School
Allen-Bowden Schools, 2 sites
Bristow Schools, 5 sites
Depew Schools, 3 sites
Drumright Schools, 4 sites
Gypsy Schools, 1 site
Kellyville Schools, 4 sites
Kiefer Schools, 4 sites
Mannford Schools, 6 sites
Milfay Schools, 3 sites
Mounds Schools, 2 sites
Oilton Schools, 3 sites
Olive Schools, 3 sites
Pretty Water Schools, 1 site
7049 Frankoma Rd
420 N Main
PO Box 257
301 S Pennsylvania
30599 S 417 W Ave
PO Box 99
4600 W 151 St
136 Evans Ave
PO Box 219
PO Box 189
PO Box 130
9352 S 436 W Ave
15223 W 81 St
Tulsa
Bristow
Depew
Drumright
Depew
Kellyville
Kiefer
Mannford
Milfay
Mounds
Oilton
Drumright
Sapulpa
Child Care
Bristow Head Start II
Home Alone Kids Club
Tendercare Learning Ctr
Lisa's Day Care
Sims, Debra Child Care Home
Kellyville Elementary Extended
Little Troopers, Inc.
Sims, Brittany Child Care Home
Talley, Jennifer Child Care Home
Anderson, Barbara Child Care Home
Claudio, Jasmin Child Care Home
Buttons & Bows
Byrd, Shannon Child Care Home
Day, Rebecca Child Care Home
Lakeside Child Development Ce
Lee, Dianna Child Care Home
Baird, Brenda Lee Child Care Home
Leffler, Leisa Kay Child Care Home
Wynn, Sharon Kaye Child Care Home
Oilton Head Start
Couch, Kimberly Child Care Home
Creek Nation Sapulpa Child De
Farmer, Jeanna Lee Child Care Home
Hose, Barbara Child Care Home
1002 S CHESTNUT
122 W 10
715 Country Club Dr
301 E. STINER
202 N SKINNER
144 S ELM
225 E MARLEY
202 S. Pine Street
8 S. Main
16 N JANETTE
115 DP NEWMAN Cir
42 BASIN ROAD
140 Lakeview Dr.
1609 HILLSIDE DR.
110 EVANS AVE
5760 S HWY 48
4561 W. 187th St.
110 E 15TH ST
1406 COMMERCIAL
306 E PETERSON
123 S Poplar
1020A N. BROWN ST
17035 S 141st W Ave
523 POPLAR STREET
Bristow
Bristow
Bristow
Drumright
Drumright
Kellyville
Kellyville
Kellyville
Kellyville
Kiefer
Kiefer
Mannford
Mannford
Mannford
Mannford
Mannford
Mounds
Mounds
Mounds
Oilton
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Hospitals
Drumright
Sapulpa
Bristow
610 W Truck Bypass
1004 W Bryan
700 W 7th St
Drumright
Sapulpa
Bristow
Creek County
50
Mannford
Elderly Care
3.3.1
Arbor Village Nursing Home
Cimarron Pointe Care Center
Drumright Nursing Home
The Gardens Nursing Home
Northside Nursing Home
Rainbow Health Care Center
Ranch Terrace Nursing Home
310 W Taft
404 E Cimarron
701 N Bristow
1165 Brenner Rd
102 E Line
111 E Washington
1310 E Cleveland
Sapulpa
Mannford
Drumright
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Sapulpa
Flood Hazard
There are five repetitive loss structures in the Creek County that are insured through the National
Flood Insurance Program. Damaged structures are rebuilt in conformance with the County’s, or
respective community’s flood damage prevention ordinance. As grants funds become available,
the regulating jurisdiction is working with the property owner to remove the structure from the
floodplain. For all structures at risk from a flood hazard, those buildings on property intersecting
the regulatory floodplain is summarized below.
Table 3-17
TOTAL BUILDINGS IN REGULATORY FLOODPLAIN
Number of
Buildings
Building Value
($$)
Contents Value
($$)
Total Value ($$)
Residential
1647
111,380,075
55,690,038
167,070,113
Commercial
111
77,678,758
77,678,758
155,357,516
Agricultural
953
50,890,200
50,890,200
101,780,400
Total
2711
239,949,033
184,258,996
424,208,029
Map Number 12 in Appendix 1 also shows the location of the critical facilities in relation to the
flood hazard. There are three critical facilities located on property intersecting the regulatory
floodplain.
Any future building in a flood hazard will be built in conformance with the County’s Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance as part of the County’s membership in the NFIP; therefore, future
buildings will not be considered by FEMA as at risk from the regulatory floodplain. The same
will be for each Creek County community participating in the plan update, as they are also
members of the NFIP.
3.3.2
Tornado Hazard
In Creek County, the City of Drumright was hit by an F-4 tornado on June 8, 1974. The path of
the tornado is shown on Map Number 13 in Appendix 1. It was reported to have done substantial
damage to all structures in a quarter-mile width along its path. To illustrate the structures at risk
if this tornado occurred today, the current buildings within this tornado’s path of destruction were
determined and their building, contents, and total value were estimated. This estimate is shown in
the following table.
Creek County
51
Table 3-18
BUILDINGS IN TORNADO SCENARIO
Number of
Buildings
140
8
1
149
Type
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Total
Building Value
($$)
8,149,708
2,271,425
27,092
10,448,225
Contents Value
($$)
1,074,854
2,271,425
40,638
6,386,917
Total Value
($$)
12,224,562
4,542,850
67,730
16,835,142
The critical facilities are also shown on Map Number 13; there are three facilities within this
tornado path.
3.3.3
Dam Break Hazard
For the structures at risk from a dam break hazard, those buildings on property intersecting the
500-year floodplain downstream of each lake is summarized below. Because of the large
drainage areas upstream of most of the dams identified in section 3.2.13, the Creek County
Floodplain Administrator determined the impact of the dam break inundation area downstream of
most of the dams would be greater than the regulatory floodplain. Therefore, Parthenia Lake
Dam, Sapulpa Lake Dam, Sahoma Lake Dam, the SCS Dams at Sites 12, 33, 36, 15, and 28, Lake
Massena Dam, Mannford Lake Dam, Boren Dam, no-name dam number 037071, and the
Heyburn Lake Dam were determined to pose a larger hazard in a dam break scenario than the
regulatory flood. Map Number 14 shows this estimated area of inundation by the dam break
hazard.
Table 3-19
BUILDINGS IN DAM BREAK (500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN) INUNDATION AREA
Type
Number of
Buildings
Residential
1,034
Building Value
($$)
47,497,283
Contents Value
($$)
23,748,642
Total Value ($$
71,245,925
Commercial
86
19,685,925
19,685,925
39,371,850
Agricultural
768
15,966,608
15,966,608
31,933,216
2,197
83,149,816
59,401,175
142,550,991
Total
Map Number 14 in Appendix 1 also shows the location of the critical facilities in relation to the
dam break hazard. There are three critical facilities in this dam break area of inundation.
3.3.4
High Wind Hazard
All areas, and all buildings, in the County are at equal risk from this hazard. The total number of
buildings, and value, in the County is shown in the table at the beginning of this section.
3.3.5
Lightning Hazard
3.3.6
Hail Storm Hazard
Creek County
52
3.3.7
Winter Storm Hazard
3.3.8
Heat Hazard
3.3.9
Drought Hazard
3.3.10
The properties at risk from this hazard are properties located on high and very high shrink-swell
potential soil types. The locations of expansive soils are shown in Map Number 7 in Appendix 1.
As discussed in the profile of the expansive soil hazard in Creek County, the soil information is
stored in raster type data. A spatial analysis to determine the number of properties and buildings
at risk from high and very high shrink-swell potential soil cannot be preformed. However, the
general location of properties at risk from expansive soils hazard is shown on Map 7 in Appendix
1. Generally, these are in the western part of the county.
There is no need to address expansive soils in this plan due to the lack of data related to damage
and there is no justification for mitigating vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities include structures with
foundations such as homes and businesses, concrete slabs in driveways and sidewalks, and
parking lots. Asphalt surfaces such as highways and runways could be affected.
3.3.11
Wildfire Hazard
All areas, and all buildings, in the County are at equal risk from being impacted by this hazard.
The total number of buildings, and value, in the County is shown in the table at the beginning of
this section. Fires can also destroy non structural assets such as agriculture, vegetation, and
vehicles. Vulnerability of these non-structural assets, both in identifying these assets and
estimating their damage potential was not quantified.
3.3.12
Earthquake Hazard
buildings, and value, in the County is shown in the table at the beginning of this section. There is
no need to address earthquakes in this plan because the infrequent events do not justify mitigating
vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities include all structures, homes, businesses and transportation
infrastructure.
3.3.13
The public is most at risk from hazardous materials when they are being transported. The County
has defined the major transportation routes and are shown in Map Number 15 in Appendix 1.
Creek County
53
3.4
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential
Losses
For each hazard, an analysis was done to determine the potential dollar losses to vulnerable
buildings identified in Section 3.3. The analysis followed the methodology discussed in FEMA
386-2, step 4, and the format of FEMA 386-2 worksheet #4 “Estimate Losses”.
Only the flood hazard, dam break hazard, and the hypothetical tornado analyses identified
structures with varying amounts of damage.
3.4.1
Flood Hazard
For the flood hazard, for this planning exercise, all structures on property intersecting the
regulatory floodplain are evaluated at one foot below the base flood elevation. (Actual first floor
elevations were not surveyed and the best available topography has 10 foot contour intervals
making windshield surveys plus and minus five feet.) Using FEMA 386-2, part 4, building
damage with one foot of flood depth is estimated to be 14 percent of the building value, and
content damage is estimated to be 21 percent of the building value.
Table 3-20
DAMAGE ESTIMATE WITH ONE-FOOT FLOOD DEPTH
Type
Number of
Buildings
Building Value
($$)
Building Damage
Value ($$)
Contents Damage
Value ($$)
Total Damage
Value ($$)
Residential
1647
111,380,075
15,593,211
11,694,908
27,288,118
Commercial
111
77,678,758
10,875,026
16,312,539
27,187,565
Agricultural
953
50,890,200
7,124,628
10,686,942
17,811,570
Total
2711
239,949,033
33,592,865
38,694,389
72,287,254
3.4.2
Tornado Hazard
For the tornado hazard analysis, the path and impact area of the F-4 tornado to hit the City of
Drumright in 1974 is depicted in Map Number 13 in Appendix 1. As discussed in Section 3.3.2,
the current buildings at risk from this tornado were determined. The FEMA 386-2 literature
states there are no standard loss estimation models and tables for tornados. Therefore, all
buildings within this tornado’s impact area were estimated to be completely destroyed. The
potential loss from this tornado today is shown in the following table.
Table 3-21
TOTAL BUILDINGS IN TORNADO SCENARIO
Type
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Total
Creek County
Number of
Buildings
140
8
1
149
Building Value
($$)
8,149,708
2,271,425
27,092
10,448,225
54
Contents Value
($$)
1,074,854
2,271,425
40,638
6,386,917
Total Value
($$)
12,224,562
4,542,850
67,730
16,835,142
3.4.3
Dam Break Hazard
For the dam break hazard, for this planning exercise, all structures on property intersecting the
hazard location were evaluated at two feet below the water elevation. (Actual first floor
elevations were not surveyed and the best available topography has 10 foot contour intervals
making windshield surveys plus and minus five feet.) This is one foot more than the vulnerability
analysis for the flood hazard because the hazard from a dam break could occur as a surge of water
rather than just rising water; therefore, it could cause more damage and that is accounted for in
the greater damage estimate percentages for two feet deep. Using FEMA 386-2, part 4, building
damage with two feet of flood depth is estimated to be 22 percent of the building value, and
content damage is estimated to be 33 percent of the building value.
Table 3-22
DAMAGE ESTIMATE WITH TWO-FEET FLOODING DEPTH
Type
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Total
3.4.4
Number of
Buildings
1,034
86
768
2,197
Building
Value ($$)
47,497,283
19,685,925
15,966,608
83,149,816
Building Damage
Value ($$)
10,449,402
4,330,904
3,512,654
18,292,960
Contents Damage
Value ($$)
7,837,052
6,496,355
5,268,981
19,602,388
Total Damage
Value ($$)
18,286,454
10,827,259
8,781,634
37,895,347
The locations of the critical facilities in relation to the hazardous material locations and the major
transportation routes are shown in Map Number 16 in Appendix 1.
3.4.5
Expansive Soils
The potential damage to structures and infrastructure located on high and very high shrink-swell
potential soils is dependant on the design of its foundation and quality of the construction of the
foundation. Both factors were beyond the scope of this multi-hazard mitigation plan. Set damage
estimates based on a percentage of the structure value were not used because of the wide variation
of the factors involved in a foundation’s stability. There is no need to address expansive soils in
this plan due to the lack of data related to damage and there is no justification for mitigating
vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities include structures with foundations such as homes and businesses,
concrete slabs in driveways and sidewalks, and parking lots. Asphalt surfaces such as highways
and runways could be affected.
3.4.6
All Other Hazards
The magnitude of the damage to structures from all the other hazards does not vary by location.
The total building and content value for all structures in County is totaled and shown in the table
in the beginning of Section 3.3.
Creek County
55
3.5
Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development
Trends
This section discusses the community’s vulnerability in terms of a general description of land use
and development trends so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Three areas were analyzed. These are the types of existing and proposed land uses, development
densities in the hazard areas, and anticipated changes in land use
3.5.1
The Creek County Assessor assigns three land use categories for the county.
These are residential, commercial, and agricultural. Land use changes can occur, and are initiated
by the property owner, usually to accommodate a new development. The County’s Board of
Adjustment reviews each change request, and takes into account hazards and hazard prone areas
in ruling on any land use change request.
3.5.2
There are 43,005 parcels of property in County. Of these, 18,189 parcels are
undeveloped. And of these 18,819 undeveloped parcels, 3737 are in the regulatory floodplain;
1130 residential, 65 commercial, and 1794 agricultural. Map Number 17 in Appendix 1 shows
this information. It must be noted that no new building development will be added to the flood
hazard because any new building will conform to the County’s Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance, which the County will continue to vigorously enforce. It will be recommended to all
new construction to investigate the shrink-swell potential of its soils, and design and construct the
foundation with the soils’ properties as a consideration.
3.5.3
Anticipated changes in land use, i.e., new subdivision development, are expected
to occur in and around Sapulpa and in the northeast corner of the County adjacent to the City of
Tulsa. It is not anticipated the smaller communities will have significant development in the
short term, however infill development will continue; utilizing existing infrastructure within the
community.
Creek County
56
Chapter 4:
Mitigation Strategies
This chapter identifies the hazard mitigation goals set by Creek County and the participating
jurisdictions, and discusses the mitigation projects or measures to be taken to achieve those goals.
4.1
Hazard Mitigation Goals
4.1.1
Mission Statement
To create a disaster-resistant community and improve the safety and well-being of the citizens of
Creek County by reducing deaths, injuries, property damage, environmental losses, and other
losses from natural and technological hazards in a manner that advances community goals,
quality of life, and results in a more livable, viable, and sustainable community.
The mission statement and goals were determined by the committee at their initial meetings.
Specific objectives were developed during the risk assessment phase and evaluated again as
potential action steps were considered.
4.1.2
Specific Goals and Objectives
Goal 1
General: To protect vulnerable populations and critical facilities from hazards.
Objectives:
1. Minimize the loss of life and damage to property and infrastructure from natural and
man-made disasters.
2. Increase public awareness of risks from hazards and implement measures that can be
taken to protect families and property from disasters.
3. Reduce the risk and effects of hazards and minimize disruption in the county.
4. Identify and protect vulnerable populations from natural and man-made hazards.
5. Identify and protect critical county and community facilities from hazards so that
they can continue their missions in the event of a disaster.
Goal 2
Flood Hazard: To reduce the risk of flood hazard in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Identify buildings at risk from the 100-year regulatory flood.
2. Ensure that development does not increase flooding downstream or have off-site
adverse impacts.
3. Identify and maximize the natural and beneficial uses of the floodplain.
4. Implement the best flood control measures to reduce vulnerability of flood-prone
properties.
Creek County
57
Goal 3
Tornado Hazard: To reduce the risk from tornados in Creek County
Objectives:
1. Encourage building of individual safe rooms and storm shelters.
2. Educate and encourage the building trades industry about construction standards that
are adequate to withstand frequent high winds.
Goal 4
Hailstorm Hazard: To reduce the risk from hailstorms in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Promote construction of hail resistant roofs.
Goal 5
Lightning Hazard: To reduce the risk from lightning in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Reduce loss of life and property, and injury due to lightning by increased public
awareness of measures to prevent and reduce damage, including warnings.
Goal 6
Winter Storm Hazard: To reduce the hazards from winter storms in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Reduce property loss and community disruption due to severe winter cold and ice
storms.
Goal 7
High Winds Hazard: To reduce the risk from high winds in Creek County.
Objectives:
1 Educate and encourage the building trades industry about construction standards that
are adequate to withstand frequent high winds.
Goal 8
Drought Hazard: Reduce the economic impact of drought hazards to Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Reduce damage to property and building foundations due to drought by improving
building codes.
Goal 9
Wildfire Hazard: To reduce the threat of wildfire hazards and their financial impact
in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Develop a County-wide fire response and support group to facilitate the provisioning
of water to fires during large fires.
Goal 10
Expansive Soil Hazard: Reduce structure’s susceptibility to soil movement.
Objectives:
1. Reduce damage to property and building foundations due to expansive soils by
improving building codes.
Goal 11
Earthquake Hazard: To reduce the risk from earthquakes in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Educate and encourage the building trades industry about earthquake resistant
construction.
Goal 12
Hazardous Materials Hazard: To reduce the risk from hazardous material storage
facilities around Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Protect the public from exposure from hazardous materials events from sites within
the community.
Creek County
58
Goal 13
Dam Break Hazard: To reduce the risk of a dam break hazard in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Identify dams that could impact the county.
2. Identify areas at risk.
Goal 14
Extreme Heat: To reduce the risk from extreme heat in Creek County.
Objectives:
1. Lessen injury and potential loss of life to citizens during periods of extreme heat
through education.
4.2
Mitigation Categories
There are several types of measures that communities and individuals can use to protect
themselves from, or mitigate the impacts of, natural and man-made hazards. Mitigation measures,
for purposes of this study, fall into the following categories:
Preventive Measures
Structural Projects
Property Protection
Emergency Services
Public Information and Education
4.2.1
Preventive Measures
Preventive measures are designed to keep certain conditions from occurring or getting worse.
The objective is to ensure that new development does not increase damages or loss of life, and
that new construction is protected from those hazards. Preventive measures are usually
administered by building, zoning, planning, and code enforcement offices. They typically include
planning, zoning, building codes, and floodplain development regulations and storm water
management.
The first two measures, planning and zoning, work to keep damage-prone development out of the
hazardous or sensitive areas. Comprehensive Plan’s prepared by communities in Creek County
identify areas that are sensitive to urban development. Zoning Ordinance’s in Creek County
regulates development by dividing the county and communities into zones or districts and setting
development criteria for each zone or district. A zoning ordinance is considered the primary tool
to implement the comprehensive plan’s guidelines for how land should be developed.
The next two measures, floodplain development regulations and storm water management. Creek
participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP sets minimum
requirements for subdivision regulations and building codes. Storm water management
regulations require developers to mitigate any increase in runoff due to their development.
Building codes require a level of new construction standards for new building construction.
4.2.1.1
•
•
Preventative Activities
Planning and zoning help Creek County and communities in the county develop proactively
so that the resulting infrastructure is laid out in a coherent and safe manner.
Building codes for foundations, sprinkler systems, masonry, and structural elements such as
roofs and the exterior building envelope are prime mitigation measures for occurrences of
floods, tornadoes, high winds, extreme heat and cold, and earthquakes.
Creek County
59
•
•
•
Participation in the NFIP and using floodplain ordinances and subdivision regulations to
regulate floodplain development is beneficial for Creek County and communities in the
county.
Tree trimming adjacent to overhead power lines and placing new lines underground would
help in preventing power outages during winter ice storms.
Better information about hazardous materials in, and being transported through the County is
desired for safety and contingency planning.
4.2.2
Structural Projects
Structural projects are usually designed by engineers or architects, constructed by both the public
and private sector, and maintained and managed by governmental entities. Structural projects
traditionally include storm water detention reservoirs, levees and floodwalls, channel
modifications, and drainage and storm sewer improvements.
4.2.2.1
•
•
•
Structural Activities
Crossing and roadway drainage improvements must take into account additional detention or
run-off reduction.
Drainage and storm sewer improvements carry runoff from smaller, more frequent storms.
Drainage system maintenance is an ongoing project of removing debris that decreases the
effectiveness of detention ponds, channels, ditches, and culverts.
4.2.3
Property Protection Measures
Property protection measures are used to modify existing buildings or property subject to damage
from various hazardous events. Property protection measures are normally implemented by the
property owner. However, in some cases, technical and financial assistance can be provided by a
governmental agency. Property protection measures from flooding typically include acquisition
and relocation, flood-proofing, building elevation, and barriers. Property protection measures
from other natural hazards include retrofitting, reinforced foundations, enhanced building codes
with emphasis on the exterior building envelope, anchoring of roof and foundation, installation of
safe rooms, hail resistant roofing, and insurance.
4.2.3.1
Property Protection Activities
Floods
• Dry flood proofing (making walls watertight so floodwaters cannot get inside)
• Wet flood proofing (letting the water in and removing everything that could be damaged by a
flood)
• Installing drain plugs, standpipes or backflow valves to stop sewer backup
Tornado
• Constructing an underground shelter or in-building “safe room”
• Securing roofs, walls and foundations with adequate fasteners or tie downs
• Strengthening garage doors and other large openings
High Winds
• Installing storm shutters and storm windows
• Burying utility lines
Creek County
60
• Installing/incorporating backup power
• supplies
Hailstorms
• Installing hail resistant roofing materials
Lightning
• Installing lightning rods and lightning surge interrupters
• Installing/incorporating backup power supplies
Winter Storms
• Adding insulation
• Relocating water lines from outside walls to interior spaces
• Sealing windows
• Installing/incorporating backup power supplies
Extreme Heat and Drought
• Adding insulation
• Installing water saver appliances, such as shower heads and toilets
Wild Fires
• Replacing wood shingles with fire resistant roofing
• Adding spark arrestors on chimneys
• Landscaping to keep bushes and trees away from structures
• Installing sprinkler systems
• Installing smoke alarms
General Measures
From the above lists, it can be seen that certain approaches can help protect from more than one
hazard. These include:
• Strengthening roofs and walls to protect from wind and earthquake forces
• Bolting or tying walls to the foundation protect from wind and earthquake forces
• and the effects of buoyancy during a flood
• Adding insulation to protect for extreme heat and cold
• Anchoring water heaters and tanks to protect from ground shaking and flotation
• Burying utility lines to protect from wind, ice and snow
• Installing backup power systems for power losses during storms
• Installing roofing that is hail resistant and fireproof
Insurance has the advantage that, as long as the policy is in force, the property is protected and no
human intervention is needed for the measure to work. Although most homeowner’s insurance
policies do not cover a property for flood damage, an owner can insure a building for damage by
surface flooding through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood insurance
coverage is provided for buildings and their contents damaged by a “general condition of surface
flooding” in the area.
4.2.4
Emergency Service Measures
Emergency services measures protect people during and after a hazard event. Locally, these
measures are coordinated by the emergency management agencies of the individual communities.
Measures include preparedness, threat recognition, warning, response, critical facilities
protection, and post-disaster recovery and mitigation.
Creek County
61
Threat recognition is the key. The first step in responding to a flood, tornado, storm or other
natural hazard is knowing that one is coming. Without a proper and timely threat recognition
system, adequate warnings cannot be disseminated.
After the threat recognition system tells municipal police departments and/or Creek County
Emergency Management Agency that a hazard is coming, the next step is to notify, or warn, the
public and staff of other agencies and critical facilities. The following are the more common
warning media:
• Outdoor warning sirens
• Sirens on public safety vehicles
• NOAA Weather Radio
• Commercial or public radio or TV stations
• Cable TV emergency news inserts
• Telephone trees
• Door-to-door contact
• Mobile public address systems
Just as important as issuing a warning is telling people what to do. A warning program should
have a public information aspect. People need to know the difference between a tornado warning
(when they should seek shelter in a basement) and a flood warning (when they should stay out of
basements).
4.2.4.1
Emergency Services Activities
The protection of life and property is the foremost important task of emergency responders.
Concurrent with threat recognition and issuing warnings, a community should respond with
actions that can prevent or reduce damage and injuries. Typical actions and responding parties
include the following:
Response Activities
• Activating the emergency operations room (Emergency Management)
• Closing streets or bridges (Sheriff/Police/County or Public Works)
• Shutting off power to threatened areas (OG&E/AEP/City and Rural Co-ops)
• Holding children at school/releasing children from school (School District)
• Passing out sand and sandbags (County or Public Works)
• Ordering an evacuation (Commission Chairman or Mayor)
• Opening evacuation shelters (Red Cross)
• Monitoring water levels (County or Public Works)
• Security and other protection measures (Sheriff or Police)
After a disaster, communities should undertake activities to protect public health and safety,
facilitate recovery, and prepare people and property for the next disaster. This is commonly
referred to as Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation.
Recovery Activities
• Patrolling evacuated areas to prevent looting
• Providing safe drinking water
• Monitoring for diseases
• Vaccinating residents for tetanus
• Clearing streets
• Cleaning up debris and garbage
Creek County
62
•
Regulating reconstruction to ensure that it meets all code requirements, including the NFIP’s
substantial damage regulations
Mitigation Activities
• Conducting a public information effort to advise residents about mitigation measures they can
incorporate into their reconstruction work
• Evaluating damaged public facilities to identify mitigation measures that can be included
during repairs
• Acquiring substantially or repeatedly damaged properties from willing sellers
• Planning for long term mitigation activities
• Applying for post-disaster mitigation funds
Overall Emergency Service Activities
• Using solid, dependable threat recognition systems is first and foremost in emergency
services.
• Following a threat recognition, multiple or redundant warning systems and instructions for
action are most effective in protecting citizens.
• Good emergency response plans that are updated yearly ensure that well-trained and
experienced people can quickly take the appropriate measures to protect citizens and
property.
• To ensure effective emergency response, critical facilities protection must be part of the plan.
• Post-disaster recovery activities include providing neighborhood security, safe drinking
water, appropriate vaccinations, and cleanup and regulated reconstruction.
4.2.5
Public Information and Education Measures
Successful public information and education measures involve both public and private sectors.
Public information and education activities advise and educate citizens, property owners, renters,
businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect people and property from them.
Public information activities are among the least expensive mitigation measures, and at the same
time are often the most effective thing a community can do to save lives and property. All
mitigation activities begin with public information and education.
Many benefits stem from providing map information to inquirers. Residents and businesses that
are aware of the potential hazards can take steps to avoid problems and reduce their exposure to
flooding, dam failure or releases, hazardous materials events, and other hazards that have a
geographical distribution. These mapped hazards are included in this Hazard Mitigation study,
and are discussed below. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and Flood Hazard Boundary
maps are available to show the flood zones for each property. Flood insurance is always
recommended for those properties subject to flooding, especially for those in Flood Zone A.
Hazardous materials sites, listed in the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s EHS
list, are shown on Map Number 10 in Appendix 1, and are listed in Section 3.2.12.
Transportation routes frequently used in the transport of hazardous materials include US Highway
60, State Highway (SH) 10, SH 11, SH 18, SH 20, SH 97, SH 99 and SH 123. There are no
railroads currently within the county. High-pressure pipeline locations have been suppressed by
the Federal government since 9/11.
Public Libraries located in the county are a place for residents to seek information on hazards,
hazard protection, and protecting natural resources. Historically, libraries have been the first
place people turn to when they want to research a topic. Interested property owners can read or
Creek County
63
check out handbooks or other publications that cover their situation. The libraries also have their
own public information campaigns with displays, lectures, and other projects, which can augment
the activities of the local government.
4.2.5.1
•
•
•
•
Public Information and Education Activities
There are many ways that public information programs can be used so that people and
businesses will be more aware of the hazards they face and how they can protect themselves.
Most public information activities can be used to advise people about all hazards, not just
floods.
Other public information activities require coordination with other organizations, such as
schools and real estate agents.
There are several area organizations that can provide support for public information and
educational programs.
Creek County
64
4.3
Research, Review, and Prioritization
A wide range of literature searches and other sources were researched to identify mitigation
measures for each hazard. Measures were identified to ascertain those that were most appropriate
for Creek County. The public involvement process included a citizen hazard mitigation
questionnaire. 104 responses were received. The survey and summary of the responses are
included in Appendix 4. The public involvement process also included holding open meetings
for all committee meetings; and a public hearing at the March 29, 2012 committee meeting. A
list of potential mitigation measures was prepared by staff and presented to the committee to
stimulate debate and discussion.
The committee reviewed the mitigation activities. The committee incorporated the criteria and
principles of the STAPLE+E project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation
activities. While not referred to by name at the time of the mitigation activity review, the intent
of the method was used. An explanation of each STAPLE+E criteria item is as follows:
S: Social
Mitigations actions are acceptable to the county if they do not adversely
affect a particular segment of the population, do not cause relocation of
lower income people, and if they are compatible with the county’s social
and cultural values.
T: Technical
Mitigation actions are technically most effective if they provide long-term
reduction of losses and have minimal secondary adverse impacts.
A: Administrative
Mitigation actions are easier to implement if the jurisdiction has the
necessary staffing and funding.
P: Political
Mitigation actions can truly be successful if all stakeholders have been
offered an opportunity to participate in the planning process and if there is
public support for the action.
L: Legal
It is critical that the jurisdiction or implementing agency have the legal
authority to implement and enforce a mitigation action.
E: Economic
Budget constraints can significantly deter the implementation of mitigation
actions. It is important to evaluate whether an action is cost-effective
before an action is implemented.
E: Environmental
Sustainable mitigation actions that do not have an adverse effect on the
environment, that comply with environmental regulations, and that are
consistent with the county’s environmental goals, have mitigation benefits
while being environmentally sound.
Among the factors discussed for each activity was its economic impact on the county. A costbenefit analysis was not done for each activity under consideration, but the committee decided to
have a formal cost-benefit evaluation done for any selected activity that would follow the
requirements of the funding source when funds are being sought and the CCEMAC would look
for actions with a benefit greater than its cost.
While the committee did not select projects for each jurisdiction, it did offer recommendations.
Creek County, and each participating jurisdiction, selected their own mitigation actions, with the
criteria as outlined in this section
Creek County
65
The potential social impact, implementation capabilities (county work force), and potential
funding availability for each activity, and the other STAPLE+E criteria principles were
considered in prioritizing the activities. The County’s action plan will take into the above factors
and include at least two projects for each hazard.
Creek County
66
Chapter 5:
Action Plan
Creek County has again reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural hazards
and hazardous material events that may impact their jurisdiction. The County also reviewed the
list of recommended actions or projects the County included in the previous plan to identify
actions that had been completed, and what other actions should be continued, deferred, or
cancelled. The results of this review are included in table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1
Status of Mitigation Measures from Previous Plan
Progress on
Recommendation
Action Description
Action
for the Action
Action
Plan #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Complete 911 addressing for all of the County
Develop specific ideas for educating the public and
businesses about hazards that can affect them, and
methods of preparing for and minimizing the
hazard event.
Identify and plan for hazardous materials and
incidents on major transportation routes through
Creek County.
Develop a countywide fire response and support
group to facilitate the provisioning of water to fire
departments during large fires.
Build community partnerships involving local
government leaders, civic, business and volunteer
groups to work together.
Acquire accurate or verify accuracy of existing
flood plain maps and develop land use regulations
to avoid construction in flood-prone locations.
Inspect Creek County schools for tornado and high
wind vulnerability.
Construct adequate bridges to pass 100-year
regulatory flood without overtopping.
Investigate voluntary pilot demonstration projects
for mobile home communities providing a shelter
and/or safe rooms for residents.
Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and
repeatedly flooded properties where acquisition is
the most cost effective and desirable mitigation
measure.
started
continue
no progress
continue
no progress
continue
no progress
continue
started
continue
continuing
continue
no progress
continue
started
continue
started
continue
started
continue
As part of the plan update process, this chapter identifies at least two (2) specific high priority
actions per hazard to achieve the mitigation goals. Additional actions, number 11 through 25,
were added. For each action, the hazard type it would be targeting is identified, the type of action
is shown, the lead agency is identified, an anticipated time schedule and estimated cost is shown,
identification of the possible funding sources are made, and the type of work product and
Creek County
67
expected outcome is discussed. Once funding is sought, a detailed benefit/cost analysis will be
done and will follow the requirements of the funding source. The following table, Table 5.2,
identifies which mitigation type project is associated with each hazard for Creek County.
Each participating jurisdiction prepared its own action plan by identifying their high priority
mitigation actions or projects to that jurisdiction that the jurisdiction could undertake in the next
five years to mitigate specific hazards. Each mitigation action included information on the same
eight points as discussed in the previous paragraph.
The following table identifies which mitigation type project is associated with each hazard.
Table 5.2
Creek County Mitigation Actions or Activities per Hazard
Creek County Mitigation
Hazard Type
Action Number
Flood
1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25
Tornado
1, 7, 19, 20, 24, 25
High Winds
1, 7, 19,20, 21, 24, 25
Lightning
1, 11, 19, 20, 24, 25
Hail
1, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25
Winter Storm
1, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25
Extreme Heat
1, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25
Expansive Soils
1, 19, 20, 24, 25
Drought
1, 19, 20, 24, 25
Wildfire
1, 4, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25
Earthquake
1, 19, 20, 24, 25
Hazardous Material Events 1, 4, 19, 20, 24, 25
Dam Break
1, 19, 20, 24, 25
Creek County
68
Creek County has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural hazards and
hazardous material events that may impact their jurisdiction. They reviewed the mitigations
activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of the STAPLE+E project
evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and prioritized the activities
as was detailed in Section 4.3. Once funding is sought, a detailed benefit/cost analysis will be
done and will follow the requirements of the funding source. The County selected 24 mitigation
activities to make up their Action Plan, at least two for each hazard, as follows.
1.
Complete 911 addressing for all of Creek County.
Hazard Type:
All Hazard
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Sheriff’s Office and County IT Dept
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$10,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
Establish and implement a system for the assignment of street names and
numbering on houses in Creek County.
Expected Outcome:
The system will retain a uniform systematic house numbering system
throughout the County, which will promote continuity, avoid duplications, and eliminate house
renumbering. This will also include 911 cell phone locations for E-911.
2.
Develop specific ideas for educating the public and businesses about
hazards that can affect them, and methods of preparing for and
minimizing the hazard event.
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Education
Lead:
Emergency Management and Community Development Dept
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$7,500
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
A plan for the distribution of hazard preparedness and mitigation
literature as well as promoting demonstrations on prevention issues which seek to lessen the
vulnerability of populations to natural hazards and hazardous material events.
Expected Outcome:
Resources may include public broadcast, brochures, radio commercials,
and newspaper articles to reach broad audiences and otherwise unknown but potentially impacted
citizens.
3.
Identify and plan for hazardous materials and incidents on major
transportation routes through Creek County.
Hazard Type:
Hazardous Materials
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Emergency Management and Sherriff’s Dept
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$20,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product/Expected Outcome:
Identify hazardous materials and the transportation
systems used in their transport within the county; inventory 1) vulnerable populations in those
areas 2) accessible fire and law enforcement resources useful for responding to hazardous
material incidents.
Creek County
69
4.
Develop a countywide fire response and support group to facilitate the
provisioning of water to fire departments during large fires.
Hazard Type:
Wildfire
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Emergency Management Mutual Aid Fire Department
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$10,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product/Expected Outcome: Establish partnerships to aid in fire response coverage for all
businesses and residents of Creek County currently, and for the foreseeable future.
5.
Build community partnerships involving local government leaders, civic,
business and volunteer groups to work together.
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Education
Lead:
Emergency Management
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$0.00
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product/Expected Outcome: A county with active contacts in government, business and
volunteer services to aid in all areas of emergency response assistance and hazard preparedness.
6.
Acquire accurate or verify accuracy of existing flood plain maps and
develop land use ordinances to avoid construction in flood-prone
locations.
Hazard Type:
Flood
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Floodplain Manager
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$15,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Update existing floodplain maps with best available data
and adopt ordinances that reflect a minimum standard of floodplain development such as
standards to be met when participating in the NFIP.
7.
Inspect Creek County schools for tornado and high wind vulnerability.
Hazard Type:
Tornado, High Winds
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$5,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product/Expected:
Outcome: Inventory buildings for areas susceptible to high winds
and tornados, including status of roofs, windows, power lines, storm shelters, etc.
Creek County
70
8.
Construct adequate bridges to pass 100-year regulatory flood without
overtopping.
Hazard Type:
Flood
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Commissioners
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$5,000 (identify)
Source of Funding:
Local
Identify and then fund structural projects for bridges
where 100-year flood events overtop the roadway; new construction which replaces older bridges
should also be constructed according to 100-year flood stages.
9.
Investigate voluntary pilot demonstration projects for mobile home
communities providing a shelter and/or safe rooms for residents.
Hazard Type:
Tornado
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$5,000
Source of Funding:
Local
Outcome: Install a tornado safe room with a capacity to
hold all residents of the selected mobile home park Find creative sources of funding and materials
such as abandoned railroad cars that are suitable for such a shelter.
10.
Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and repeatedly flooded
properties where acquisition is the most cost effective and desirable
mitigation measure.
Hazard Type:
Flood
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Floodplain Manager
Time Schedule:
Ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$2,500,000
Source of Funding:
HMGP 75% federal; Local share 25%
Work Product:
Acquisition and removal of all buildings from the floodplain.
Expected Outcome:
Where acquisition is deemed to be the most cost-effective means of flood
mitigation and protection.
Creek County
71
11.
Provide surge protection and uninterruptible power sources for
electronic-reliant county facilities, such as the Sheriff Department,
County Offices, and Emergency Operations Center.
Hazard Type:
Lightning
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
County Emergency Management
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2017
Estimated Cost:
$ 500 per unit and $20,000 for installation of generator per facility
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
The work product will be electronic protection units to protect the
electronic equipment in County facilities.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be uninterrupted data retrieval from
County facilities. With so much data and municipal records stored electronically, access to that
data is vital to the continuous operation of government.
12.
Develop a plan for Sheriff Department and Fire Department personnel to
expand their knowledge and capabilities relative to hazardous materials
and events, including meth labs. Also include public education on Meth
Labs.
Hazard Type:
Hazardous Materials
Project Type:
Training
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013, and annually
Estimated Cost:
$10,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
Training for emergency response personnel.
Expected Outcome:
This will allow County personnel and personnel who respond to
county emergencies to properly identify potentially hazardous situations, assess the magnitude
and monitor the event until hazardous material response contractors arrive. Also include a public
information campaign to educate the general public on how to identify Meth Labs.
13.
Obtain funding for the distribution of educational materials on the
hazards of extreme heat to vulnerable populations.
Hazard Type:
Extreme Heat
Project Type:
Education
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$10,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
Development of information on the hazards of extreme heat, in
coordination with the State Emergency Management.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be increased public awareness of the
dangers of extreme heat. This information is targeted primarily vulnerable populations through
agencies that work with these populations.
Creek County
72
14.
Upgrade the emergency communications network for fire, police, sheriff,
911, ambulance and other emergency operations.
Hazard Type:
Flood, Tornado
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2017
Estimated Cost:
$5,000,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local / FEMA / Homeland Security
Work Product:
Upgrade in communication equipment and to evaluate and possibly
expand personnel dispatching coverage.
Expected Outcome:
The outcome will be the ability to better disseminate information to
response personnel and the public.
15.
Develop a public information campaign to promote the advantages of
individual fire suppression equipment in residences, including fire
extinguishers.
Hazard Type:
Wildfire
Project Type:
Education
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2015
Estimated Cost:
$10,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
Develop a public information campaign promoting individual fire
suppression equipment in residences. This campaign would also include fire extinguishers.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be increased fire protection for individual
residences.
16.
Update County equipment and vehicles for combating ice storm
damage/adverse conditions to public infrastructure.
Hazard Type:
Severe Winter Storm
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
County Maintenance Department
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2016
Estimated Cost:
$ 10,000.00 (will utilize existing county vehicles)
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
Acquisition of additional winter snow and ice equipment (plows and
spreaders) for its existing vehicles to combat ice and winter storms.
Expected Outcome:
Returning the infrastructure back to normal operations as quickly as
possible after winter storms, ice and snow hazards, and all adverse conditions, is essential to
hazard recovery, and is the expected outcome.
Creek County
73
17.
Educate the public about adequate building systems for resistance to
tornados and high winds.
Hazard Type:
Tornado, High Winds
Project Type:
Education
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2015
Estimated Cost:
$10,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
The development of educational materials on building systems to
resist high wind hazards and tornados.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be increased public awareness of
building systems that are available to resist tornados and high wind hazards.
18.
Install window air conditioners for elderly shut-ins for whom extreme
heat can be a life threatening hazard.
Hazard Type:
Extreme Heat
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2017
Estimated Cost:
$50,000
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
The work product is to develop non-profit oriented funding or county
funding resources (or through donations) and the installation capability to meet the needs of
elderly shut-ins and other vulnerable populations as needing assistance during extreme heat
events.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome is to reduce the number of persons who are
exposed to heat as a life threatening hazard.
19.
Hazard Occurrence Data Collection.
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Creek County Emergency Management
Time Schedule:
On-going when started
Estimated Cost:
$10,000.00/year
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
The work product will be a database of information about each future
hazard occurrence.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be good community specific information
on the hazard that impact the County for future plan updates.
Creek County
74
20.
Public Information on Mitigation
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Creek County Emergency Management
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2014
Estimated Cost:
$50,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local/Grant
Work Product:
The work product will be information on specific mitigation
activities that the public can implement. In coordination with the State McReady Program.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be more mitigation activities
implemented by the residents of the County.
21.
Window Laminates
Hazard Type:
Hail, Heat, High Winds
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
County Administration
Time Schedule:
As funds become available
Estimated Cost:
$50,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local/Grant
Work Product:
The work product would be installing laminates to all public
buildings’ windows.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be a layer of protection from the hazards
to prevent or lessen injuries to occupants of the buildings.
22.
Establish fire breaks in the Wildfire urban interface.
Hazard Type:
Wildfires
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$1,000,000.00
Source of Funding:
Grant
Work Product:
The work product would be a fire resistant buffer around the
incorporated parts of the County.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be to minimize the area where wildfires
can easily enter the urban areas of the County.
23.
Engineering for a new County Maintenance Building and Emergency
Operations Center
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Preparation
Lead:
County Administration, County Emergency Management
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$31,000.00 for the engineering
Source of Funding:
Local/Grant
Work Product:
Prepare the site for the new county maintenance building for
construction
Expected Outcome:
This will complete the engineering necessary for the floodplain
development application and building permits.
Creek County
75
24.
New Radio Repeater Towers
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Expected Outcome:
link county districts.
25.
All Hazards
Mitigation
FY2013
$30,000.00
Local
Construct new repeater towers throughout the County.
This will provide communication to CB radio operators, schools, and
New Hand Held Narrow Band Radios
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$35,000.00
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
Acquisition and distribution of hand held narrow band radios.
Expected Outcome:
This will meet new federal regulations for governmental and private
groups on narrow band radios.
Creek County
76
The City of Bristow has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural
hazards and hazardous material events that may impact their jurisdiction. They reviewed the
mitigation activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of the STAPLE+E
project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and prioritized the
activities as the County did as was detailed in Section 4.3. The City of Bristow selected six
mitigation activities to make up their Action Plan, as follows.
1.
Build an emergency operations center, located at the City Airport
Hazard Type:
Floods, Tornado, High Winds, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfires, Hazardous
Material Events.
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$800,000.
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
Construction of an emergency operations center.
Expected Outcome:
A dedicated building to serve as an emergency operations center,
completely outfitted, to serve all needs of emergency operations in one location.
2.
Purchase and installation of equipment so City library can serve as a
back-up emergency operations center.
Hazard Type:
Material Events.
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$45,000.
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
A back-up emergency operations center
Expected Outcome:
Provide a second emergency operations center in the event the primary
facility is unable to be used.
3.
Outfit an existing trailer into a mobile emergency operations center.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Expected Outcome:
the scene of a hazard.
Creek County
Material Events, Lightning.
Mitigation
City
FY2013
$35,000.
Local / Grants
A City of Bristow mobile emergency operations center
So the City is able to bring an emergency operations command post to
77
4.
Provide surge protection and uninterruptible power sources for
electronic-reliant essential services of the City of Bristow, such as the
Police Department, Fire Department, Emergency Operations Center,
City Hall.
Hazard Type:
Lightning
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$120,000.
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
The work product will be electronic protection units to protect the
electronic equipment in City facilities.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome will be uninterrupted data retrieval from City
essential services. With so much data and municipal records stored electronically, access to that
data is vital to the continuous operation of government.
5.
Replace two existing emergency warning sirens and add an additional
siren.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Expected Outcome:
6.
Floods, Tornados, High Winds, Winter Storms, Wildfires, Hazardous
Material Events.
Mitigation
City
FY2013
$60,000.
Local / Grants
Emergency warning sirens.
Provide City with improved coverage for emergency warnings.
Purchase emergency services radios for the new Citizens Corporation
Group (CCG) which is being forms in 2012.
Hazard Type:
Floods, Tornados, High Winds, Lightning, Hailstorms, Severe Winter
Storms, Extreme Heat, Drought, Wildfires, Earthquakes, Hazardous
Materials Events.
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City
Time Schedule:
FY2013
Estimated Cost:
$33,000.
Source of Funding:
Local / Grants
Work Product:
Acquisition of emergency services radios.
Expected Outcome:
To equip Citizens Corporation Group with communications equipment
so the CCG can be in communication with City emergency responders.
Creek County
78
The City of Drumright has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural
mitigations activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of the
STAPLE+E project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and
prioritized the activities as the County did as was detailed in Section 4.3. Once funding is sought,
a detailed benefit/cost analysis will be done and will follow the requirements of the funding
source. The City selected ten mitigation activities to make up their Action Plan, as follows.
1.
Remove debris from floodway.
Hazard Type
Flood
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City of Drumright
Time Schedule:
FY 2013-2017
Estimated Cost:
$100,000
Source of Funding:
Local/Grant
Work Product:
A floodway cleared of obvious debris so that the drainage ways flow
more efficiently and therefore have more capacity.
Expected Outcome:
The Drumright floodway (Tiger Creek basin) is littered with much debris
from many sources, including plant overgrowth, trash, illegally dumped material, concrete, pipe
and other such materials. This project would clean out much of this debris. With a cleaner
channel, water would flow more efficiently which means floods would be of a lesser scale and
erosion would be reduced.
2.
Develop a plan with the Police Department and the Fire Chief to expand
enforcement of the floodplain regulations.
Hazard Type:
Flood
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Drumright Fire Chief
Time Schedule:
FY 2013 and ongoing
Estimated Cost:
$500 to $1,000 per case
Source of Funding:
Local/Grant
Work Product:
An organized plan to enforce the floodplain regulations
Expected Outcome:
People have stored “junk” within the 100 year flood plain. In the event
of a sudden and heavy downpour that continued for some time, the floodplain could be
underwater. The presence of junk and debris in the floodplain could cause more serious flooding
issues downstream and floating items carried by storm water cause property damage or injury to
persons.
Creek County
79
3.
Replace undersized water lines, add fire hydrants and add at least one
water storage tank.
Hazard Type:
Wildfires
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead Agency:
City of Drumright
Time Schedule:
FY 2013-2020
Estimated Cost:
$2,000,000
Source of Funding:
Local/Grants
Work Product:
Upsize most of the City’s water distribution lines, add fire hydrants and
add at least one water storage tank.
Expected Outcome:
The City of Drumright has insufficient water in some parts of town
especially on the fringe areas which are most at risk for wildfires. Lines need to be increased in
size, fire hydrants added and at least one water storage tank on the SE side needs to be added so
that adequate water pressure exists to utilize the fire hydrants and serve the customers’ needs.
This would have the added benefit of a reduced ISO rating for insurance purposes.
4.
Install perimeter fencing around City’s water well sites.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Expected Outcome:
Environmental Quality
wellheads.
5.
Hazardous Material Event (Water well contamination)
Mitigation
City of Drumright
FY 2013 – 2015
$4,000 per well site. Total $24,000
Local
Install a 50 foot perimeter fence around all off-site well locations.
A 50 foot perimeter fence is recommended by the OK. Dept of
to prevent cattle and other animals from being in close proximity to the
Establish fire breaks in the wild land/urban interface areas.
Hazard Type:
Wildfires
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Fire Chief
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$500,000
Source of Funds:
Grant/Volunteer/City
Work Product:
A fire resistant buffer between the incorporated areas and the county
areas within Drumright’s fire protection area.
Expected Outcome:
Minimization of the area of the city exposed to the danger of wildfires
and easier containment of wildfires.
Creek County
80
6.
Establish an inventory of emergency generators for loan to the elderly
and disabled population of Drumright.
Hazard Type(s):
Severe Winter Storms, High Winds, Tornados
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Emergency Management Director (Fire Chief)
Time Schedule:
As Funding permits
Estimated Cost:
$25,000
Source of Funds:
Local and Grant
Work Product:
Establish an inventory of emergency generators that can be accessed to
provide power to the homes of disabled and elderly individuals during extended periods of power
outages which typically accompany severe ice storms, wind storms, and tornado activity.
Expected Outcome:
Lives could be saved as persons who have critical power needs such as
oxygen machines, etc. would have access to power when normal power supplies are cut off due to
natural disasters.
7.
Hazard Occurrence Database
Hazard Type:
All Hazards
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
City Administration
Time Schedule:
On-going once started.
Estimated Cost:
$1,000 per year.
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
An ongoing narrative and historical account of any disaster, activities,
shortcomings, and equipment needed or used and sources of resources, etc.
Expected Outcome:
Community Specific information would be available about events, things
done successfully, what could be improved, where resources came from, etc.
8.
Identify hazardous material types and plan for hazardous material events
on transportation routes and insure that the Drumright Police and Fire
Departments are appropriately trained on hazardous material handling.
Hazard Type:
Hazardous Material
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Fire Department
Time Schedule:
Begin in FY 2013 with ongoing training.
Estimated Cost:
$3,500 per year.
Source of Funding:
Oklahoma Fire Service Training Academy/Local
Work Product:
A plan to address hazardous materials spills and accidents involving
hazardous materials carriers.
Expected Outcome:
An efficient and adequate response to hazardous materials events for the
protection of the public.
Creek County
81
9.
Develop and prepare a water conservation or drought contingency plan.
Hazard Type:
Drought, Hazardous Material Event (Water Source Contamination and
Mechanical Failure)
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead Agency:
City Administration
Time Schedule:
FY 2013
Estimated Cost:
$2,000
Source of Funds:
Local and Grants
Work Product:
A plan to deal with severe water shortages or curtailment of supply of
potable water due to severe drought, water source contamination or the physical ability to meet
the demand that would be implemented in stages as the problem becomes more severe.
Expected Outcome:
A plan to deal with water shortages in an orderly and well-reasoned
manner.
10.
Develop a routine Storm Siren testing procedure.
Hazard Type:
Tornados and High Winds
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead Agency:
Fire Department
Time Schedule:
FY 2013
Estimated Cost:
$500 per year.
Source of Funding:
Local
Work Product:
A regular routine of testing sirens on a scheduled basis that can be
communicated to the public so that they are not alarmed when they year the sirens.
Expected Outcome:
An assurance that sirens do work when needed and confidence in early
warning system by the citizens.
Creek County
82
The Town of Kellyville has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural
mitigation activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of the STAPLE+E
project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and prioritized the
activities as the County did as was detailed in Section 4.3. The Town of Kellyville selected two
activities to make up their Action Plan, as follows.
1.
Stationary mounted 35KW emergency generators to qualify Fire Station
and Town Hall as emergency shelters.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead Agency:
Fire Department and Town Administration
Time Schedule:
FY 2013
Estimated Cost:
$80,000. (2 at $40,000 each).
Source of Funding:
Local Revenue and Grants
Work Product:
Purchase and installation of two stationary mounted 35KW emergency
generators; one for the fire station and one for the Town Hall.
Expected Outcome:
To make the Fire Station building and the Town Hall building as Red
Cross compliant emergency shelters
2.
Education brochures to document procedures and precautions during
extended power outages caused by severe winter storms.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead Agency:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Expected Outcome:
during cold weather.
Creek County
Education
Fire Department and Town Administration
FY 2013
$2,500.
Local Revenue
Educational brochures
Educate the public on how to be prepared for extended power outages
83
The Allen Bowden Public Schools has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for
the natural hazards and hazardous material events that may impact their jurisdiction. They
reviewed the mitigations activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of
the STAPLE+E project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and
prioritized the activities as the County did as was detailed in Section 4.3. The District selected
four mitigation activities to make up their Action Plan, as follows.
1.
Provide safe room for school and community. The Gym and Safe Room
would provide ample space for community to seek shelter from tornados.
Hazard Type:
Tornado
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead Agency:
Allen Bowden Schools
Estimated Cost:
$ 2,500,000
Source of Funding:
Grants and Local Funds
Work Product:
Gym/Safe Room for the school and community, due to the high number
of trailer houses and low income dwellings in the district and for the safety of the students
attending school the safe room would need to be capable of housing 1000 or more individuals
during a tornado outbreak.
Expected Outcome:
The Allen Bowden School is listed as an emergency shelter. This would
add an additional layer of support and protection during time of an emergency in our district.
2.
Provide surge protection and uninterrupted power source for the campus
in the event of a catastrophic electrical failure.
Hazard Type:
Lightning/Ice Storm
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2014
Estimated Cost:
$25,000 per unit with 3 units needed to cover campus.
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Generator to provide uninterrupted power during a power failure.
Expected Outcomes:
This would provide a safe environment in the event the facility is needed
for an emergency shelter.
3.
Snow Removal Equipment
Hazard Type-:
Winter Storm
Project Type-:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2014
Estimated Cost:
$50,000
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Acquisition of tractor with frontend loader for snow removal and sand
spreading.
Expected Outcome:
Equipment will be used to clear snow in areas around the school to
provide access in the case facility is needed for shelter.
Creek County
84
4.
Weather Bug Weather station, to provide accurate and up to date
weather information to all members of the school and community
emergency management team.
Hazard Type:
Floods, Tornado. High Winds, Winter Storms
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
FY2013-2014
Estimated Cost:
$15,000
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Channel 2 weather department would provide setup and software for a
weather station to be placed on our site.
Expected Outcome:
Accurate and up to date on site weather information, available with the
click of a mouse. This would help keep the community and school safe in all emergency related
situations.
Creek County
85
The Bristow Independent School District has reviewed and analyzed the risk
assessment studies for the natural hazards and hazardous material events that may impact
their jurisdiction. They reviewed the mitigations activities listed in Chapter 4,
incorporated the criteria and principles of the STAPLE +E project evaluation method in
their consideration of the mitigation activities, and prioritized the activities as the County
did as was detailed in Section 4.3. Once funding is sought, a detailed benefit/cost
analysis will be done and will follow the requirements of the funding source. The
District selected four mitigation activities to make up their Action Plan. The mitigation
activities are:
1.
School Safe Room at Kindergarten Building
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of Funding:
Work Product:
Kindergarten building.
Expected Outcome:
2.
Tornado, High Winds
Mitigation
FY2013-14
$75,000.00
Local / Grants
The work product will be the construction of a safe room in the new
A safe secure location for our students and staff during storms.
Install Lightening Rods and Surge Protectors at all School Buildings
Hazard Type:
Lightening
Action Plan:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$100,000.00
Source of Funding:
Grants
Work Product:
To install lightening rods and surge protection devices at all school
buildings.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome is to protect students, buildings and electrical
equipment from lightening strikes.
3.
Upgrade Intercom Systems at the District’s four school sites.
Hazard Type:
Tornado and Hazardous Material Events
Action Plan:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$80,000
Source of funding:
Grants
Work Product:
The work product would be to upgrade all intercom systems in our
school district.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome would be to better inform the students and staff in
the event of hazardous / dangerous events.
Creek County
86
4.
Communication Equipment
Hazard type:
Hazard with short notification time. Floods, Tornados, High Winds,
Lightning, Hail, Severe Winter Storms, Wildfires, Earthquakes, Hazardous Materials Events.
(And General Emergencies).
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead :
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$20,000.00
Source of Funding:
Grants
Work Product:
To provide hand held radios to all sites in the school district
Expected Outcome:
With the purchase of these new radios, we will be able to communicate
with local agencies as well as all of our school sites in case of emergency situations.
Creek County
87
The Drumright Public Schools has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the
natural hazards and hazardous material events that may impact their jurisdiction. They reviewed
the mitigations activities listed in Chapter 4, incorporated the criteria and principles of the
STAPLE+E project evaluation method in their consideration of the mitigation activities, and
prioritized the activities as the County did as was detailed in Section 4.3. The District selected
five mitigation activities to make up their Action Plan, as follows.
1.
Install a 2-way radio system for the buses and other district base sites.
Hazard Type:
Tornado/Hazardous Events/Winter Storms
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Drumright School District Administration
Time Schedule:
As funds are made available
Estimated Cost:
$40,000
Source of funding:
Grant, bond issue and/or local funds
Work Product:
The work product would be to install two-way radios in all busses, four
mobile units for administration and a base unit for the district office.
Expected Outcome:
The expected outcome would be to have a means of communication with
all busses, district vehicles, and administrators in the event of hazardous events.
2.
Install water drainage system to remove run-off water from areas that penetrate
buildings.
Hazard Type:
Flooding of buildings during rainstorms and winter snow and ice melt.
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Drumright School Administration and Maintenance staff
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$50,000
Source of Funding
Grant, Bond Issue, or local funds
Install berms, french drains, downspouts, and
pumps, or other devices to prevent water from entering lower levels of buildings. Outcome is to
prevent mud, water damage and mold.
3.
Replace or upgrade the intercom system at Bradley Elementary School
including the addition of an outdoor warning system.
Hazard Type:
Tornado, Hazard Materials Events, Lightning
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
As funds are available
Estimated Cost:
$25,000
Source of funding:
Grants/Local
Work Product:
The work product would be to upgrade the intercom system inside and
add outside speakers and other warning components. The outcome would be to better inform the
students and staff on the playgrounds, bus loading areas, and other areas of the campus when
hazardous events are eminent.
Creek County
88
4.
Safe Rooms in Elementary School.
Hazard Type:
Project Type:
Lead Agency:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
Source of funding:
Work Product:
staff and community.
Expected Outcome:
conditions
5.
Tornado, High Wind
Mitigation
As funds become available.
To be determined based upon the specific facility requirements
Grants, bond issue, local funds
A large capacity safe room at Bradley Elementary school for students,
Protection of students, staff, and community during severe weather
Install an electric power back-up system at each site.
Hazard Type:
Severe winter storm or tornado
Project Type:
Mitigation
Lead:
Time Schedule:
Estimated Cost:
$25,000 - $75,000
Source of Funding:
Grants, Bond Issue, local funds
Work Product:
The work product would include the purchase and installation of gas or
natural gas generators at the elementary school, middle school, high school and the
maintenance/bus facility.
Expected Outcome:
The outcome would be the ability to power the buildings including the
gym with electricity, heat, and/or AC to protect equipment and house displaced community
members until power is restored to homes.
Creek County
89
Chapter 6:
Plan Maintenance and Adoption
This chapter includes a discussion of the plan maintenance process and documentation of the
adoption of the plan by the Creek County Emergency Management Advisory Committee and the
Creek County Board of County Commissioners.
6.1
Monitoring, Evaluating, Updating the Plan
The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Emergency Management Director
will oversee the day-to-day implementation of the plan. Monitoring will include getting quarterly
reports from the agencies and departments involved in the mitigation activities as to their progress
in implementing the projects included the Action Plan that fall within that agency’s or
department’s scope of responsibility.
The Creek County Emergency Management Advisory Committee will also evaluate the
mitigation plan on an annual basis. The evaluation shall include reviewing the goals and
objectives of the mitigation plan for any changes. The evaluation will also include a review of
the hazards in the plan to determine if the risks or hazard locations have changed. The Creek
County Emergency Management Advisory Committee will complete and provide an annual
evaluation to the Board of County Commissioners summarizing the accomplishments of the
mitigation activities. In the action plan, the Creek County Emergency Management Advisory
Committee will review the items identified to implement each action plan activity for their
appropriateness, and report problems to the Board of County Commissioners. These
implementation items include the responsible agency to oversee the mitigation activity, the time
schedule, and the funding source.
The Creek County Emergency Management Advisory Committee will make a comprehensive
update to the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan within five years, from the approval date, as per
FEMA requirements, and will be re-submitted to ODEM and FEMA for approval as required.
6.2
Incorporating the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by the Creek County
Commission as a guide to county-wide mitigation activities. Appropriate Action Plan activities
will be incorporated into the planning process, and in the annual county budget. As stated in
section 6.1, the Chairman and the Emergency Management Director will oversee the day-to-day
implementation of the plan.
They will work with the CCEMAC to monitor how mitigation activities are incorporated into
other county plans. Members of the CCEMAC are also Department Heads charged with the
responsibility of updating and enforcing key plans and policies of the County. Creek County
currently has a capital improvement plan to guide development and future improvements. These
Creek County
90
plans have mitigation strategy components in them, and the County will incorporate any approved
the mitigation plan strategies into those plans `when the particular plan is updated. All plans are
updated as needed by the County. The inspections department enforces the building codes in
Creek County. After adoption of the mitigation plan, the inspections department will continue to
enforce the building codes on new construction. Selection of future CIP projects will include
consideration of the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan.
6.3
Public Involvement
Creek County is committed to involving the public directly in updating and maintaining the
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Copies of the Plan will be available at the Creek County
Emergency Management Office and at the County Courthouse. Input from citizens will be
solicited as to how the mitigation process can be more effective. Comments can be made directly
to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Emergency Management
Director.
Creek County
91
Appendix 1:
Mapping
Creek County
92
Creek County
93
Creek County
94
Creek County
95
Creek County
96
Creek County
97
Creek County
98
Creek County
99
Creek County
100
Creek County
101
Creek County
102
Creek County
103
Creek County
104
Creek County
105
Creek County
106
Creek County
107
Creek County
108
Creek County
109
Creek County
110
Appendix 2:
Committee Meetings
Creek County
111
Meeting #1 Notice
Creek County
112
Meeting #1 Agenda
Creek County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Meeting
Collins Ball Room
Creek County Assessor Building
317 E Lee
Sapulpa, OK
November 17, 2011
10:00 am
Meeting Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
Call to order.
Introductions.
Discussion on the need to this multi-hazard mitigation plan.
Discussion on the involvement of the jurisdictions; Creek County, the
communities, and the school districts.
5. Establishment of a committee to facilitate the update of the MultiJurisdictional Creek County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and select a
chairman.
6. Review draft of Chapter 1, Introduction to the Plan. Gather general
information on each jurisdiction for Chapter 1.
7. Review Chapter 2, The Planning Process. Discuss the hazards and
prepare a general population hazard awareness survey and determine
how to disseminate and collect the survey.
8. Summarize the information needed from each jurisdiction for Chapters
1 and 2.
9. Set date and time for next meeting.
10. Adjourn.
Creek County
113
Meeting #1 Attendance
Creek County
Name
Jurisdiction
Irving Frank
Misty McCurley
Jimmy Reynolds
George Jones
Roger Tuttle
Rick Forbes
Joe Crowder
Roscoe Thornbury
Janell Diehl
Johnny Burke
Johnny Brock
Alfred Gaches
Bob Grant
John McElhenney
Creek County
Creek County
City of Drumight
Town of Kellyville
Creek County Health Dept
Drumright Schools
Creek County
Creek County
Creek County
Sapulpa Herald
Mounds Schools
City of Bristow
INCOG
114
Meeting #1 Minutes
Creek County
115
Meeting #2 Notice
Creek County
116
Meeting #2 Agenda
Collins Ball Room
317 E Lee
Sapulpa, OK
January 12, 2012
10:00 am
Meeting Agenda
1.
Call to order.
2.
Introductions.
3.
Review and Approve minutes of November 17, 2011 committee meeting.
4.
Discuss outstanding data to complete Chapter 1.
5.
Present general population hazard awareness survey.
6.
Review draft of Chapter 3, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis, including updating the
list of critical facilities.
7.
Review draft of Chapter 4, Mitigation Strategies.
a.
Discuss goals and objectives of the hazards’ mitigation actions.
b.
Discuss mitigation activities. Identify activities for each jurisdiction.
8.
Set date and time for next meeting.
9.
Adjourn.
Creek County
117
Creek County
Name
Jurisdiction
Jimmy Reynolds
Bob Grant
City of Bristow
George Jones
City of Drumright
Roscoe Thornbury
Creek County
Joe Crowder
Drumright Schools
John McElhenney
INCOG
Stacey White
Town of Kiefer
Curtis Shelton
Bristow Schools
Ike McDaniel
Mannford Schools
Newt Stephens
Creek County
118
Meeting #2 Minutes
Creek County
119
Meeting #3 Notice
(Meeting Date: February 16, 2012)
Creek County
120
Meeting #3 Agenda
Collins Ball Room
317 E Lee
Sapulpa, OK
Thursday February 16, 2012
10:00 am
Meeting Agenda
1. Call to order.
2.
Introductions.
3.
Review and Approve minutes of January 12, 2012 committee meeting.
4.
Review of draft of Chapter 5; Action Plan of Mitigation Projects.
Discuss any outstanding data needed to complete Chapter 5.
5.
Review of draft of Chapter 6; Plan Maintenance and Adoption.
6.
Develop a request for comments on the final draft of the plan update
letter.
7.
Set date and time for next meeting.
8.
Adjourn.
Creek County
121
Creek County
Name
Jurisdiction
Bob Grant
City of Bristow
Irving Frank
Creek County
Misty McCurley
Creek County
Roscoe Thornbury
Creek County
Joe Crowder
Drumright Schools
John McElhenney
INCOG
Curtis Shelton
Bristow Schools
Newt Stephens
Creek County
122
Meeting #3 Minutes
Collins Ball Room
317 E Lee
Sapulpa, OK
Minutes of February 16, 2012 Meeting
1. The meeting was called to order by John McElhenney (JDM) at 10:00 am.
2.
JDM made general introductions.
3.
Minutes of the January 12, 2012 committee meeting was approved as written.
4.
JDM reviewed the draft of Chapter 5 of the draft plan update, “The Action Plan”.
JDM gave an overview of the type of mitigation activities each jurisdiction
submitted. Each jurisdiction attending this meeting had submitted mitigation
activities. A question was raised if a jurisdiction could change or add to their
mitigation activities before the final draft was finished. JDM said they could, so get
any changes to JDM by next week, February 24, 2012. Review of draft of Chapter
5; Action Plan of Mitigation Projects. Discuss any outstanding data needed to
complete Chapter 5.
5.
JDM then reviewed the draft Chapter 6 of the draft plan update, “Plan Maintenance
and Adoption“. JDM explained that Creek County, not INCOG, must monitor,
evaluate, and update the plan as described in this chapter. And the County will be
required to incorporate mitigation actions into other County plans. And the County
will be required to continue to involve the public in maintaining and updating the
plan.
6.
The committee reviewed the draft letter to solicit comments from state agencies and
neighboring communities on the final draft plan, and recommended the letter to be
sent as presented.
7.
The next meeting will hold a public hearing on the final draft of the plan, receive
comments on the final draft plan, explain the plan adoption procedure, and have the
committee take action on the final draft of te plan update. The next meeting was set
for March 29, 2012, at 10:00 am back here at the Creek County Assessor Building.
8.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 am..
Creek County
123
Meeting #4 Notice
Meeting Notice
Creek County has received a grant from the Oklahoma Department of Emergency
Management to update the Creek County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan. The next meeting in the planning process to update the Creek County multijurisdictional multi-hazard mitigation plan will be held March 29, 2012, at 10:00 am at
the Creek County Assessor Building, 317 E. Lee St, Sapulpa, OK. Topics planned for the
meeting include holding a public hearing on the draft plan, receiving comments from
neighboring jurisdictions and agencies, discussion on recommending approval of the
draft plan to the participating jurisdictions. All Creek County citizens are invited.
Contacts for this update to the Creek County multi-jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan can be made to Roscoe Thornbury, Creek County Emergency Management at 918227-6358 or to John McElhenney, INCOG at 918-584-7526.
Posted at: ___________________________
Posted Date: _________________________
Posted by: ___________________________
Creek County
124
Meeting #4 Agenda
Collins Ball Room
317 E Lee
Sapulpa, OK
March 29, 2012
10:00 am
1.
Call to order.
2.
Introductions.
3.
Discussion and approval of October 26, 2011 meeting minutes.
4.
Hold Public Hearing on final draft plan.
5.
Receive comments from agencies and neighboring communities.
6.
Discuss any outstanding items from the jurisdictions.
7.
General discussion on the entire draft plan.
8.
Discussion and action to recommend approval of the update to the Osage County
multi-hazard mitigation plan to the participating jurisdictions.
9.
Discussion on having each jurisdiction adopt the updated plan by resolution.
10.
Set date and time for next meeting, if needed.
11.
Adjourn.
Creek County
125
Creek County
126
Meeting #4 Minutes
Creek County
127
Appendix 3:
Sample Comment Letter
Creek County
128
February 27, 2012
Richard Brierre
Executive Director
INCOG
2 W Second St, Ste #800
Tulsa, OK 74103
Dear Mr. Brierre,
The Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Oklahoma Department of Emergency
Management has awarded Creek County an HMGP grant (FEMA 1876-DR-OK –05) to update
the County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Creek County was responsible for overseeing the initial Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and in
undertaking the update process. The County formed a committee of the participation jurisdictions
to participate in this update. The committee has met several times and has developed a draft of
the updated plan. A copy of this draft document is available on the INCOG web site at
www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/commdev_hazard_mitigation.html.
As
such, the County is inviting you to provide input and offer suggestions on the plan update.
Your comments are requested to be delivered, either written or verbal, to myself by 5 pm on
March 15, 2012. The committee plans to meet March 29, 2012 at 10:00 am at the Creek County
Assessor Office, 317 E Lee St, Sapulpa, OK, to review all comments and take action on a
recommendation of the Updated Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Creek County
Board of Commissioners.
County or INCOG staff may be contacting you directly as the planning update process is
completed. If you have any questions, please contact me at (918) 227-6958, or John
McElhenney, INCOG, at (918) 584-7526.
Sincerely,
Roscoe Thornbury
Director, Creek County Emergency Management
Creek County
129
Appendix 4:
Questionnaire
Creek County
130
HAZARD MITIGATION SURVEY
Creek County is in the process updating the County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This will be
strategic planning guide to reduce the county’s impact from natural hazards and hazardous
materials, in fulfillment of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requirements of the FEMA.
This survey is intended to understand the citizen’s awareness and concern of hazards that could
impact Creek County.
Very
Concerned
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Not
Concerned
For the following hazards, please circle the corresponding number indicating how concerned you
are about these hazards affecting Creek County.
Dam Breaks
4
3
2
1
Drought
4
3
2
1
Earthquakes
4
3
2
1
Expansive Soils
4
3
2
1
Extreme Heat
4
3
2
1
Floods
4
3
2
1
Hailstorms
4
3
2
1
Hazardous Materials Events
4
3
2
1
High Winds
4
3
2
1
Lightning
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Tornadoes
4
3
2
1
Wildfires
4
3
2
1
Other Hazard: __________
4
3
2
1
Other Hazard: __________
4
3
2
1
HAZARD
Last day of survey is November 23, 2011.
If you have any comments, suggestions, or additional concerns, please note them on the back of
this survey.
Creek County
131
Survey Results
Hazard
Average Survey Score
Dam Break
1.5
Drought
2.9
Earthquakes
2.5
Expansive Soils
1.8
Extreme Heat
3.0
Floods
2.1
Hailstorms
2.5
Haz Mat Events
2.3
High Winds
2.6
Lightning
2.4
3.0
Tornados
3.2
Wildfires
3.1
Scoring:
Not concerned
Somewhat concerned
Concerned
Very concerned
= 1 point (minimum score per hazard)
= 2 points
= 3 points
= 4 points (maximum score per hazard)
Results:
104 Responses
Hazard of Most Concern is Tornados
Hazard of Least Concern is Dam Breaks
Creek County
132
Appendix 5:
Plan Adoption Resolutions
Creek County
133
Appendix 6:
Hazard Summary
Creek County
134
Natural Hazard Assessments
Each hazard is assigned a likelihood rating based on the criteria and methods described below.
Likelihood of Event “Rating” is based on the following definitions
Highly likely (HL)
Event is probable within the calendar year.
Likely (L)
Event is probable within the next three years.
Occasional (O)
Event is probable within the next five years.
Unlikely (UL)
Event is possible within the next ten years.
Based on History, and using the information described above,
Likelihood of Event is “Quantified” as follows:
Highly Likely (HL)
Event has 1 in 1 year chance of occurring
1/1 = 100%
Likely (L)
Event has 1 in 3 years chance of occurring
1/3 = 33%
Occasional (O)
1/5 = 20%
Unlikely (UL)
1/10 = 10%
Which results in the following “Ranges” of Likelihood:
Event is “Highly Likely” to occur – History of events is greater than 33%.
Event is “Likely” to occur – History of events is greater than 20%, but less than or equal to 33%.
Event could “Occasionally” occur – History of events is greater than 10%, but less than or equal to 20%.
Event is “Unlikely,” but is possible of occurring – History of events is less than 10%.
Example: NWS-NCDC records show that 38 tornadoes were reported in Example County between 01/01/1950 and 12/31/2003. 38
events divided by 53 years = 0.72(72%) which would make future occurrences “Highly Likely” to happen.
This table’s format, categories, and the criteria for completing the table, was supplied by the Oklahoma Department of Emergency
Management, 06/29/2004.
Table: Creek County Hazard Summary
Summary of Hazards for the Creek County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Event
History
Estimated Total
Dollar Loss ($$)
Average Cost
Per Event ($$)
Likelihood
Percentage
Likelihood
Rating
Floods
78 events from 1950 thru 2010
10,780,000
138,205
78/60<100%
HL
Tornado
51,933,000
851,361
61/61=100%
HL
High Wind
1,916,000
6,676
287/61>100%
HL
Lightning/Thunderstorm
268,000
53,600
5/61=8%
UL
Hailstorms
365,000
1,763
207/61>100%
HL
Winter Storms
50,155,000
1,671,833
30/61=49%
HL
Extreme Heat
0
0
10/61=16%
O
Drought
0
0
11/61=18%
O
Expansive Soils
zero events from 1950 thru 2010
0
0
0%
UL
Wildfire
events from 1950 thru 2010
>100%
HL
Earthquake
0%
UL
Hazmat Events
events from 1950 thru 2010
Dam Failure
0
0
0
0
>100%
HL
0%
UL
Note: where zero events or zero dollar amounts are shown, this means there was no data reported for the
hazard event.
Creek County
135

creek county

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Conceptual Map - West Creek Business Park

2016 Spa Creek Clean Water PaddleFEST

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

Patio Party - DuPage Pads

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

2013 smart meetings

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan

English - monitor ii